Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Westhoughton, in the room of Rhys John Davies, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds.)—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Service Men's Children

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the great educational handicap to children of many members of the Regular Forces when these men are continually being moved from one district to another; whether he is aware that some children go to as many as eight schools; and whether, in view of the handicap to intelligent children who may be undergoing higher education, he will grant special boarding school facilities for them if the parents so desire.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am well aware of these difficulties. Local education authorities are empowered to assist with boarding education in suitable cases and I have already suggested that these could include children whose parents' occupation involves constant change of home. Any special assistance to Service parents over and above that available under local education authorities' general arrangements would, however, be the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and his Service colleagues.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Cannot some permanent solution be found to this urgent problem? Is this not just another reason why it is so hard to get Regular troops, who realise what a dog's life their families have to lead in following the drum?

Mr. Tomlinson: The arrangement that is made between the local authorities could be permanent. The question of whether or not that could be applied to all and sundry is one for the Service Departments.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting with his right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to introducing a workable plan for children of Regular soldiers and to letting the people concerned know all about it because, at the moment, they do not?

Mr. Tomlinson: The possibility of any further help for Service parents is now being studied.

Gypsy Children

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education (1) if he is aware that a high percentage of gypsy children are unable to read or write; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this problem;
(2) how many gypsy children over five years of age do not attend school; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this problem.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no statistics available. I am sure, however, that local education authorities make every endeavour to help these children to obtain an adequate education.

Mr. Dodds: Is this not another example of how little is known about this great human problem? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that local authorities are driving out gypsy families from places where they have been for generations; that they are being hunted from place to place? Has not the Minister some responsibility for providing education for gypsy children?

Mr. Tomlinson: The responsibility happens to lie with the local authorities, and in many counties they are actually making the provision. One of the difficulties is, of course, that these families do not normally stay very long in any one place.

Mr. Dodds: Will my right hon. Friend meet some missionaries among the gypsies so that he may be acquainted of this problem?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, I am prepared to meet missionaries from anywhere.

Mr. Dodds: I hope that they will be able to convert my right hon. Friend.

Punishments and Rewards (Report)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Education whether the investigations into punishments and rewards of children in schools, under taken by the Foundation for Educational Research, which was announced on 24th April, 1947, have now been completed; whether the report, which he informed the House on 18th May, 1950, would probably be completed in July, 1950, has been issued; whether it will be published in full or summarised; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, the investigations have been completed. The report to which I referred was the report of the Foundation's investigators, which was not in a form suitable for publication. No report has yet been issued, but I understand that the Foundation will shortly reach a final decision about publication. I do not propose to intervene.

Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say what action will be taken when he receives this report?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look at it first.

Teachers (Supply)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education what is the estimated number of trainees for teaching in each of the ensuing five years; how many newly-qualified teachers will be available during that period; and to what extent economy in educational expenditure is likely adversely to affect the necessary supply of teachers during the next five years.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a report recently submitted to me which gives, in the appendix, the best information available on the first two parts of the Question. The report also shows that arrangements have been made for securing a very considerable increase in the number of teachers over the next few years, and I can assure my hon. Friend that progress has not so far been held up by any restriction in educational expenditure.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that this financial economy may have an effect next year on the number of teachers required?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I do not think so.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the only new source of potential teachers will be girls leaving our secondary modern schools? If so, what can he do about that?

Mr. Tomlinson: I know that that is one source, but it is not the only source. The more mature person might also be brought in.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education what steps he proposes to take, in view of the threatened shortage of teachers, revealed by the Report of the Advisory Council, to attract to teaching mature students from other professions.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Report mentioned by the hon. Member does not forecast a general shortage of teachers but draws attention to certain special difficulties which have to be overcome if we are to secure an adequate supply. In accordance with the recommendations of the McNair Committee, specially generous grants have been available for some years for students aged 25 and over taking one-year courses at training colleges. I hope that the publicity given to the Report will make this facility more widely known.

Mr. Hollis: Would the Minister agree that it is necessary not merely to make it more widely known—what he says is perfectly true—but that the Report also calls attention to the fact that there is great anxiety as to whether a sufficient supply of these mature teachers will be forthcoming in future? Is it not possible, not only to make the facilities more widely known, but to extend the facilities?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but anxiety does not mean, of course, that there will be a shortage but that there may be a shortage. We are ready to do anything we can to make these facilities known.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does my right hon. Friend accept the figure of additional teachers required in the next two years to be something like 20,500? In view of the urgent need of primary and infant schools what action is he taking to encourage people to go into that kind of teaching?

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot accept that figure without going further into it. With the entries at present in training colleges and the numbers coming in in the two years we see the possibility of getting through without reducing present standards of staffing, but we need all we can get.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that classes, especially in primary schools, are far too big and that it is not only a question of not reducing standards but of greatly improving educational accommodation?

Mr. Tomlinson: We realise that to the full, and I think it is gratuitous to point it out to me. I should like to point out to hon. Members generally that we have a million more children to cater for and that those occupy classes as well.

Mr. J. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to cut down classes to 30 children, which most teachers would like, we should need an additional 60,000 teachers?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, and as the Report points out there is no possibility of doing that within the next five or 10 years. We should recognise that impossibility.

Brigadier Peto: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what his policy is with regard to the closing of primary schools, which is so much against the interest of many, in view of the shortage of teachers?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know of any primary school that is being closed.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to how the size of classes in primary schools compares with pre-war?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is better than it has ever been.

Forms and Returns

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the shortage of paper and the shortage of teachers, he will take urgent steps to reduce the number of forms which have to be filled in by headmasters and headmistresses of Government-controlled schools so that the latter may be enabled to give more time to the task of education.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. This matter has recently been under careful review and

I am satisfied that the requirements of my Department do not go beyond what is essential. The question of forms required by local education authorities has also been reviewed in connection with the discussions of the Local Government Manpower Committee.

Brigadier Smyth: Would not the Minister agree there is considerable concern in the teaching profession today at the amount of time that is taken up in duties not strictly connected with teaching? I have been through all these forms at various schools and it seems to me many of them are unnecessary, except to give employment to officials in Government Departments. Would the Minister therefore use his best endeavours, in the interest of economy and education, to do away with some of these forms?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I have also gone through these forms and I have come to the conclusion that our requirements are absolutely essential. Some of the forms are used for answering Questions in the House.

Dr. King: Would my right hon. Friend resist the implication in this Question that headmasters and headmistresses should cut down administrative duties so that they should engage in more class teaching?

Brigadier Smyth: Does the Minister realise that there are forms which show great lack of trust and confidence in people in high positions in the teaching profession? Does he not agree that it is ridiculous that a headmistress should have to certify that she has given leave to one of her staff to go to the funeral of a relative and that she has to give the name of the deceased relative and the date of the funeral?

Mr. Tomlinson: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that some of the things which he has now suggested as not being necessary would be very soon pointed out to be necessary, if we let up on them.

Exchange of Teachers Scheme

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Education how many teachers applied to go to Europe last year under the Exchange of Teachers Scheme; how many went; and what was the reason for the small number for which firm plans were made.

Mr. Tomlinson: Forty-seven applications were received. Twelve were appointed of whom three withdrew at a late stage. A number of applicants did not have the appropriate qualifications. These interchange schemes are, moreover, based on an exchange of equal numbers of teachers and a shortage of suitable foreign candidates reduced the number of interchange posts available for English teachers.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware there was very great disappointment after applicants had been asked to send in their names? Will he try to see there is a more successful scheme during this coming year?

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot guarantee there will never be any disappointments because every time there are more applicants than there are places somebody is disappointed.

Teachers' Superannuation

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Education if he is in a position to make a statement on the negotiations which have been taking place for an extended superannuation scheme for teachers.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not yet in a position to make any statement regarding the amendments to or extensions of the Teachers' Superannuation Acts.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that, having regard to the fact that civil servants had their arrangements completed some two years ago, teachers are extremely disappointed? Would not action help to encourage recruitment of teachers? Will the right hon. Gentleman please move in this matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: The positions of the civil servant and of the teacher are on a different footing because one is subject to the Superannuation Acts and a different method applies to the other.

Durham County Council (Teachers)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Education what decisions were taken at the meeting over which he presided between the representatives of the Durham County Council and the National Union of Teachers to discuss matters arising out of the appointment of teachers by the Durham education authority.

Mr. Tomlinson: The representatives of the County Council assured me once more that they would comply with the directive I had given them both in the letter and in the spirit. On this basis, the representatives of the teachers' organisations offered to intensify their efforts to secure among teachers employed by the Council full membership of their appropriate union or professional organisation. This offer was accepted by the Council's representatives, while the teachers' representatives accepted, on the same basis, a suggestion of the Council's representatives that arrangements should be made for representatives of both sides to meet for the purpose of discussing questions of common interest and of fostering good relations between them.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be no delay in the appointment of teachers? Does he peruse local Press cuttings and statements that are made from time to time on these matters?

Mr. Awbery: Can we have an assurance that this does not interfere with the right of working men, in the teaching profession or any other, to strike against anybody in the profession who refuses to join their organisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-CANADIAN TRADE COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he has considered the recommendations from the Anglo-Canadian Trade Committee, a copy of which has been sent to him, concerning the calling of an Empire economic conference; and what reply he has made.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I have not received a copy of the recommendations referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Russell: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy will he look into it, in view of the fact that it is now 19 years since we last had a large-scale economic conference? Does he not think it is time, in view of the changed conditions, that we should have another?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Naturally, I will look into the matter if the hon. Member sends me whatever he has in his possession. But I do not accept the allegation that there has not been a meeting of the Commonwealth on these matters for 19 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not large-scale."] We had one only last September on a very full scale.

Mr. Braine: Bearing in mind that great damage was done to Anglo-Canadian trading relations some years ago by the arbitrary cancellation of contracts, would not greater advantage accrue from accepting this suggestion at a time when the Canadians are willing to hold a conference?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I said that I would be prepared to consider this matter, and the Government would, but we have just been having very amicable talks with Canada in the last week on all these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (FOOD SHORTAGE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what recent representations have been made to him in respect of this country giving further assistance in the relieving of food shortage in India.

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in view of the impending famine in Madras and Bihar, if he will say how many of the ships chartered by His Majesty's Government, carrying food, have arrived at Indian ports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what request has been received from the Government of India for assistance in meeting the impending famine in Bihar.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: No request or representations have been received from the Government of India since that referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 5th April. We have followed India's food problem with close sympathy and concern, and we have done our best to give practical assistance. Since the United Kingdom is predominantly a food importing country, it is not possible for this assistance to take

the form of the provision of food grains from the United Kingdom. This is fully understood by the Government of India. But we were able at the close of last year to arrange for the diversion to India, as a loan, of 43,000 tons of Australian wheat which would otherwise have come to the United Kingdom. I need hardly say that the question of its replacement is in abeyance until India's supplies improve, and the Indian Government have been so informed.
There is, however, one way in which we can make, and have made, a vital contribution. I refer to the assistance given by the Ministry of Food Chartering Organisation, which, by agreement, also acts as agent for chartering ships for India. So far this year some 60 ships from the Australian and North American runs have been chartered for India. Most or all of these would otherwise have been available for the United Kingdom import programme. Another 24 ships have been booked for lifting grain from China to India.
In all, the Chartering Organisation has secured about three-quarters of a million tons of shipping space for India over the last few months. Twenty-three ships of a total tonnage of over 200,000 tons have arrived at Indian ports. The Prime Minister of India recently expressed his appreciation of this help given by the United Kingdom. We shall, of course, gladly continue to give whatever further help we can in this way.
The House will be glad to know that on 22nd May the Indian Minister of Food announced that with increased purchases, accelerated shipping and resultant extra arrivals, the Government of India had been able to give to the destitute States larger quantities of foodgrains for distribution. He explained further that the local spring harvest almost doubled the stocks held in January, and this improvement, combined with grain arrivals arranged in May, June, July and August of half a million tons each month, enables the Government of India to hold the situation in the critical summer months.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we very much hope that the present more favourable trend in India's food position will be maintained, and that India will emerge safely from the very difficult period through which she is passing.

Mr. Sorensen: If it is necessary to send to India further grains coming to this country, could we not adopt the same principle as we have done on previous occasions?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, certainly, but unfortunately there are no grains of that sort moving at the moment.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that correspondents' reports from India are not so optimistic as the reports which he has received? Will he inform the House when the remainder of the ships are expected at Indian ports? Cannot this country do a bit more by sending rice or something of that sort to help these poor, miserable people?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am not relying upon reports. I am quoting from public statements made by the Indian Minister of Food. We have not given as much as we would have liked, but we have given important help. The diversion of ships means that our own imports have diminished by that amount, because they are ships which would otherwise have been used for our own wheat and other imports. On the question of rice, we are only buying rice at the moment from Brazil and it is not the type of rice that India wants. It would be costly to divert it and the quantity would not be very great.

Mr. Eden: I am sure the House would welcome any action which can be taken. With regard to diversions from Australia, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the war on more than one occasion diversions were made and replacements were provided from Canada. If this situation continues to be serious, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether further diversions of grains from Australia are possible, we making up the supply here by replacements from Canada?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir. The 43,000 tons loaned to India were diverted from Australia and will in due course be replaced by India when she is able to do so. At the moment there are three ships on the way from Australia, but they are already beyond the point when they can reasonably be diverted; we are not loading any more grain from Australia at the moment and it is the next three

months which matter to India. We are looking into all the points and doing all we can.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the widespread anxiety about this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will keep in touch with the Government of India in case they do need further help? Can he say whether we have been asked to give any other help of a different nature, such as administrative and medical help? Further, has he been in touch with other Commonwealth countries, and can he give us any information about the supply of foodstuffs from there?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: We are, of course, in constant touch with the Indian Government on this and on other similar matters. There has been no request from India, apart from the one to which I referred in answer to a previous question, for any help, whether medical or otherwise. We are also in communication with other Commonwealth Governments, many of which are doing all they can to help, particularly Canada, Australia and Pakistan.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: While appreciating the great help which has already been given, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is a widespread feeling in this country that even at greater sacrifice we should be willing to do more? Secondly, so that the efforts may be co-ordinated, have the British Government made any representations to the United Nations with a view to the best results ensuing from all the subscribing nations?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think that the United Nations would be able to help in this matter. I think we can do it better ourselves in consultation with other countries in the Commonwealth. I fully agree that there is a feeling in this country that we should do even more, and, of course, it will be possible for individuals to do more. The Oxford Committee for Famine Relief has, in a letter to "The Times," made an appeal for donations, and I hope they will reply to that generously. I have been very carefully into this question since it arose. I think we are giving the maximum help of the best sort that the Government can give.

Sir Herbert Williams: What kinds of grain have been shipped from China, and from what ports?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I cannot say without notice. I think it is mostly wheat, but I am not sure. I would need notice to answer that question. It is primarily a matter for India rather than His Majesty's Government.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the essential problem seems to be the distribution of food that has already reached there North of the Ganges into Northern Bihar, and that there are fears that the monsoons will come before the food can reach the areas where it is required and where there is destitution? Can he say whether we can offer technical assistance to see that the food reaches the places where it is so badly needed? Even if not from ourselves surely for that we might approach the United Nations?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I think the essential problem is the shipping to get the wheat there in the first place. There, we have been able to give great help. There is a further important problem inside India which we have discussed with the Indian Government. They have not made any request for technical assistance, but if they did we would be happy to consider how we could help.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that the great problem for India is always that a large proportion of the population will not eat wheat, even if it is sent to them, but require rice—large numbers would not eat wheat but would starve—can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the amount of chartered shipping to which he has referred has gone to rice exporting ports, where one can reasonably suppose some rice can come from?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The ships we have helped to charter have been used to lift grains bought by the Government of India, who are in the best position to judge what grains they need.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Pit Props

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many standards of pit prop timber were consumed by the

mining industry in Britain during 1950; what is the estimated consumption during each of the years 1951 and 1952; whether supplies of such pit prop timber from imported and indigenous sources will be adequate for the period forward to 31st December, 1952; and whether strategic stockpiles of such timber are to be established.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Hartley Shawcross): It is not the practice to disclose the National Coal Board's consumption of pit prop timber, and I am not in a position to forecast what relation supplies of pit props will bear to demand over the next two years. Our requirements of pit props certainly include a prudent strategic reserve.

Mr. Nabarro: While I recognise the need for reticence on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's part, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least give the House an assurance that in view of our unhappy experiences in the last war, when our Baltic sources of supply for pit prop timber were closed to us, he will bear strategic stockpiling very closely in mind?

Sir H. Shawcross: The National Coal Board, like any other commercial undertaking, is entitled to preserve some reticence about its position, but I am certainly very much concerned to see that our imports of timber from different sources enable us to have proper regard for the considerations which the hon. Member naturally has in mind.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the shortage of pit props caused us the greatest anxiety during the last war and placed a great strain upon our shipping resources in bringing them over longer lines of supply? Having regard to the great inroads made into our domestic resources, will he make a survey to see how far these have been replenished?

Sir H. Shawcross: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am, of course, keeping that matter under—

Sir H. Williams: Active consideration.

Sir H. Shawcross: No; that is a phrase I never use. I am keeping the matter under constant attention and I appreciate very fully the necessity of building up our stocks for this and other essential purposes.

Timber Exports

Mr. Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of softwood and hardwood, respectively, were exported from the United Kingdom in 1950; and what proportion of these woods were suitable for use in the building trade.

Sir H. Shawcross: A total of 2,825 tons of United Kingdom timber were exported in 1950, 1,067 tons being sawn hardwood and 236 tons sawn softwood. During the same period 1,800 tons of imported hardwood and 343 tons of imported softwood were re-exported. I do not know whether any of the hardwood was suitable for use in the building trade but there is, of course, no shortage of hardwood for housing in this country. I presume that some of the softwood could have been used for building; but the quantity exported was insignificant and the bulk of it went to the Channel Islands and other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister not agree that this is a most extraordinary statement, in view of the fact that hon. Members opposite have consistently maintained that one of the bottlenecks in the building industry is a shortage of timber? In view of that, will the Minister give an undertaking that no wood suitable for building houses in this country will be exported until the houses have been provided here?

Sir H. Shawcross: We have certain responsibilities towards the Channel Islands and, indeed towards other Commonwealth countries which the hon. Member appears to have forgotten. But, in spite of that fact, the tonnage of softwood exported to those areas was quite insignificant in relation to the total building programme.

Raw Wool (Consumption)

Mr. William Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the consumption of wool by Yorkshire mills fell during March for the seventh month in succession; and what effect this trend will have on the production and price of utility clothing.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am aware that consumption of raw wool by the United

Kingdom industry has been falling in recent months, but this decline has been to a large extent offset by increased use of other fibres, particularly recovered wool. As a result, the total consumption of fibres by the wool industry in the first quarter of this year was only some 5 per cent. less than the rate in the corresponding period of 1950. I think it unlikely that a reduction of this order will of itself have any marked effect on the production or prices of utility clothing.

Mr. Wells: In view of this trend and the fact that raw wool prices are falling in Australia, will my right hon. and learned Friend give very close scrutiny to any demand which may be made for increased prices of utility goods?

Sir H. Shawcross: That is certainly a matter which I have under constant attention and which I am watching, particularly in the case of wool.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that manufacturers get utility cloth at the present time?

Sir H. Shawcross: That is really another matter, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of maintaining supplies of utility cloth to the manufacturers is one the importance of which I do not for a moment overlook, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal about these problems.

Electrical Generating Equipment (Export)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of electrical generating equipment of all classes exported from the United Kingdom during the year 1950; the value of such exports during the first four months of 1951; and the value pro rata for the full year 1951.

Sir H. Shawcross: United Kingdom exports of electrical generating sets and generators (including parts) during the year 1950 amounted to £16,357,000, and during the first four months of 1951 to £4,075,000; the value pro rata for the full year 1951 of these exports is £12,226,000.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the devastating effect of power cuts upon our industrial production at present, arising


primarily from a shortage of generating equipment, is the time not now propitious to reconsider the whole of our export policy of this vital type of equipment?

Sir H. Shawcross: The question of our export policy of electrical and other equipment is, of course, constantly under review—both from the point of view of economic and of strategic considerations, but I certainly would not commit myself to the view that these exports have not gained greater advantage than disadvantage.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that in the last few weeks power cuts in the most essential industrial area of the country—in the Midlands—have been far worse than ever before, arising simply from this cause?

Sir H. Shawcross: No, Sir. The power cuts have not arisen at all as a result of exports of electrical generating equipment. In the main, this has consisted of small or medium-type generators, and the total capacity of the generators exported is very small, in comparison with the production of a single power station in this country, as I shall hope to show in connection with a subsequent Question.

Exports to Soviet Union

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of electrical generating equipment exported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the 16 months ended 30th April, 1951, or nearest convenient period; and whether, in view of the stringency of the fuel and power supply position in the United Kingdom, he will place any restriction upon future exports of such generating equipment to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Sir H. Shawcross: Exports to the Soviet Union of electrical generating sets and generators (including parts) amounted in 1950 to £6,078,159 and to £389,685 in the current year up till 30th April. As regards the second part of the Question, these exports to Russia have been for the most part small portable and medium size generating sets. As I informed the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher) on 7th May, Russian orders for the portable sets, which constituted a large proportion of these exports in 1950, were completed before the end of the year. There has

been adequate capacity to meet home demands for these types of equipment but we shall, naturally, continue to watch the situation.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not suicidal to continue to export to Russia any type of generating equipment which is being used to provide power and lighting in factories which are making armaments to send to the Chinese to shoot down our own troops in Korea?

Sir H. Shawcross: I understand that the vast majority of the small generators which we have been supplying to Russia are used in forests in connection with the felling of timber, and I would remind the hon. Member that last year one-fifth of our total imports of timber came from the Soviet Union. We attempt to consider this matter in a proper way in the Board of Trade, and we consider that the basic and underlying problem in all this—and I apologise for the length of this answer, but there are other Questions directed to the same point—is whether, looked at either from the economic or from the strategic point of view, the advantages we get in return for these exports are at least as great as those which the Communist Powers obtain from receiving them. In our view the economic and strategic advantages which we have obtained because of the returns which we get from exporting goods of this kind are greater than those which have been obtained by the Communist countries from receiving them.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement of the quantities of rubber exported since the beginning of this year to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Brigadier Rayner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of rubber has been exported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Roumania since 1st January last; and on what dates the major consignments were authorised.

Sir H. Shawcross: In the period January-April, 1951, 4,061 tons of imported raw rubber were exported from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union, 109 tons to Czechoslovakia and 84 tons to Hungary. There were no exports of raw rubber to Poland or Roumania during


this period. Between 9th April (when authorisation became necessary with the introduction of export licensing) and the 30th April, export licences were issued for 2,400 tons to the U.S.S.R. and 115 tons to Czechoslovakia. Not all of this was exported before the end of April. Exports of rubber during January-April this year from Malaya to the Soviet Union were 14,425 tons, and to the other countries of the Soviet bloc were 4,917 tons.

Mr. Thorneycroft: While recognising the difficulty and complexity of this subject and of these figures, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether his attention has been called to statements in the Press that there has been a very substantial increase in this type of export to the Soviet Union and to her satellite countries, and whether he would very carefully watch this position to ensure that we do not get into the same kind of trouble we did over other forms of exports some time ago?

Sir H. Shawcross: The hon. Member may be assured that I am keeping a very careful watch on it. Our average exports to those countries are not increasing; they are being maintained at a level corresponding to that which existed last year. The hon. Member realises very well the complexity and the difficulty of this problem. It is a fact, as I have already said, that a fifth of our total imports of timber come from the Soviet Union, and a third of our total imports of coarse grain come from that area; and these are matters that one cannot disregard in considering what action to take.

Mr. James Glanville: Is it not a fact that although some of these countries may be Communist countries they are none the less friendly Powers? [Laughter.] Yes, up to now. There is nobody at war. What would the Tories prefer—trade with Communist countries, or war? Let us know.

Sir H. Shawcross: I do not propose to take it upon myself to answer for hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. There are various degrees of friendship, but we are certainly not at war with the Communist countries, and I have indicated the economic reasons which lead to the necessity of continuing trade relations with them.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that only 27 Questions have been answered? Is it not possible to ask the Government Front Bench to co-operate by giving less extensive answers?

Mr. Speaker: I am only too well aware of that fact. I have been watching it carefully.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many oil engine driven electrical generating units were exported from this country to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the years 1949 and 1950; and what was the aggregate capacity thereof in kilo watts or horse-power.

Sir H. Shawcross: Oil engine driven electrical generating units are not specified in the United Kingdom trade returns by number or capacity, but I am informed that about 4,000 sets of a total capacity of some 225,000 kilowatts were produced for export to the U.S.S.R. during the two years 1949 and 1950. The majority of these sets were of 50 kw. capacity.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that in the United Kingdom people who want these generating sets are now being quoted a 12 month delivery date and that every set used here abates the pressure on the electricity load?

Mr. Speaker: This Question relates to some other country, not the United Kingdom.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and output capacity of boilers and alternators for power stations exported from Britain to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the years 1948, 1949 and 1950.

Sir H. Shawcross: Complete figures of the number and output capacity of boilers and alternators for power stations exported to the U.S.S.R. during 1948, 1949 and 1950 are not available, but it is known that 52 alternators of various types, with a total rate of output of approximately 250,000 kW in 1948 and 1949 and one turbo alternator set of 25,000 kW in 1950, were delivered under the war-time Civil Supplies Agreement. In addition, 24 500 kW steam driven generating sets with boilers and 30 240


kW steam driven generating sets without boilers were delivered to the U.S.S.R. during 1949 and 1950.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of all electrical machinery exported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for each of the years 1948, 1949 and 1950.

Sir H. Shawcross: The total value of United Kingdom exports of electrical machinery to the Soviet Union during each of the years 1948, 1949 and 1950 was £2,186,000, £4,975,000 and £6,822,000 respectively.

Electric Fires (Safety Guards)

Mr. Rogers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the large numbers of accidents resulting from the use of unprotected electric fires, he will introduce legislation to make compulsory the provision of safety guards on all such fires or radiators offered for sale to the public.

Sir H. Shawcross: The introduction of legislation confined to the object suggested by my hon. Friend is not a matter for which I should be responsible, but I understand that an inter-Departmental Committee is at present considering the whole question of safety guards on electric fires and radiators.

Film Finance Corporation

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are his intentions regarding the extent of the future activities of the National Film Finance Corporation.

Sir H. Shawcross: I am not yet able to make a statement, but I hope to be in a position to do so shortly.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the whole of the limited production now in British film studios depends upon the marginal money supplied by the Corporation, and that, as these studios see ahead only to about October, unless an announcement is made very shortly there will be further unemployment in the industry?

Sir H. Shawcross: Yes, I am aware of the difficulties in the present situation. I have not yet had a great deal of time to consider it personally, but I hope to be

able to make a statement about it before very long.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to restrain the Corporation from financing films, such as one now in production under the title "I Spy Strangers," which tend to cast discredit on this House by representing Members of Parliament as spies and saboteurs?

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the title of that film has already been changed?

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the statement in the annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation to the effect that Association of Cinematograph Technicians insisted upon four members of a sound crew being sent overseas with a unit, and insisted upon a settlement of £500 out of funds supplied by the Corporation being paid to the union benevolent fund if a threatened strike were to be averted; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such action.

Sir H. Shawcross: I understand that the payment referred to was made by a film company in settlement of a dispute which arose between them and the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians about the terms of an agreement between employers and employed in the film industry. I have no jurisdiction in matters of this kind; I understand, however, that the British Film Producers' Association have since advised their member companies not to arrive at settlements of disputes in this way without prior consultation with the Association.

Mr. Shepherd: Ought not the right hon. and learned Gentleman express disapproval of this arrangement, since there was no work for the four men concerned and the sum of £500 really amounts to blackmail? Is he not aware that this, in an industry where costs are already inflated, is very regrettable indeed?

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not a fact that the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians contest the claims made in this paragraph of the Corporation's Report, and have asked for an independent inquiry into the whole


matter, for which they are quite prepared? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether that course should not be followed?

Sir H. Shawcross: I certainly understand that in this question, as in most others, there are two sides. It is not my policy to interfere in the day to day operations of the Corporation, who, I am satisfied, exercise proper care and control over the expenditure of the public funds which are placed at their disposal.

Mr. Foot: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Twenty-eight Questions in 41 minutes is very slow progress. I think we ought to get on.

Tariff Conference, Torquay

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Report of the Torquay tariff negotiations.

Sir H. Shawcross: I did not intend to make any further statement. If the hon. Member has any particular question he would like to put to me, I will of course answer it, or if he would care to talk or write to me about the whole matter I will be glad to see him.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that, as a result of these negotiations, we have tied our hands for another three years not to introduce any new tariff preferences or to increase any existing ones? In view of the declining enthusiasm for this policy all over the world, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it a monstrous decision to have to come to?

Sir H. Shawcross: No, Sir, on the whole I think the advantages that we have got from the regulation of the position under the Tariff Agreement are greater than the disadvantages which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the important part tariffs and preferences have played in the past in stimulating Empire economic development? Would it not have been more in accord with the interests of this country and of the rest of the Commonwealth to have denounced this Agreement?

Sir H. Shawcross: No, Sir, I do not think it would be to the advantage of this country to denounce this Agreement. I am particularly concerned to stimulate as far as I possibly can trade between the different parts of the Commonwealth; but our trading interests do extend, as do those of the other parts of the Commonwealth, beyond the Commonwealth itself, and it is important to have regard to them as well.

Oil and Greases (Exports to Hong Kong)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total exports of oil and lubricating grease from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong during the periods January to April, 1950, and January to April, 1951.

Sir H. Shawcross: In the period January to April, 1950, 61,000 gallons of refined petroleum and lubricating oil and 170 tons of lubricating greases were exported from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong. For January—April, 1951, the corresponding figures were 260,000 gallons and 310 tons respectively. There were no exports of motor spirit, gas oil, fuel oil or diesel oil. It is necessary to add that the United States placed an embargo on all exports to Hong Kong on 3rd December, 1950, and it was therefore necessary for the United Kingdom to send additional supplies of oil and lubricating greases to Hong Kong for local consumption.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what part of those exports this year went by way of Hong Kong to China; and whether we still continue to export those articles?

Sir H. Shawcross: I have answered that question at least four times before. I have said that from a date in August, 1950—which I forget off-hand—there have been no exports of any of these things to China.

British Ship (Cargo)

Mr. Baker White: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a British ship of the Moller Line on charter has sailed from Rotterdam via Aden and Hong Kong for Tientsin with a cargo of scientific instruments, cameras and microscopes; and


what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take in this matter.

Sir H. Shawcross: I was not aware of the shipment to which the hon. Member refers, but as at present advised I should not propose to interfere with cargoes lawfully exported by a friendly State to China merely because they are being carried in a British ship. Nor have I any reason to believe that any exports consigned from the Netherlands to China would include strategic materials.

Mr. Baker White: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that this ship, the "Alpha Orient," which passed Colombo on 24th May, does not contain any air photographic cameras or photographic material suitable for use in military aircraft?

Sir H. Shawcross: I am not in a position to give the details of a cargo which was not loaded in a British port, but I have no reason whatever to think that cargoes loaded from the Netherlands would include strategic materials.

UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS TO COUNTRIES IN EASTERN EUROPE* OF MINING MACHINERY OTHER THAN PORTABLE POWER TOOLS



1949
1950
1951 January-April



Cwt.
£
Cwt.
£
Cwt.
£


Czechoslovakia
…
…
4,093
90,333
4,636
132,745
373
11,044


Soviet Union
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—


Finland
…
…
489
7,689
64
1,391
3
216


Poland
…
…
44,106
655,496
37,216
572,720
7,828
127,367


Hungary
…
…
1,255
13,945
80
1,764
—
—


Yugoslavia
…
…
509
5,222
732
5,281
—
—


Roumania
…
…
8
589
—
—
—
—


Total, East European countries
50,460
773,274
42,728
713,901
8,204
138,627


 * Including Finland and Yugoslavia.

There were no exports to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania or Bulgaria, or after 1950 to the Soviet zone of Eastern Germany. For the latter no separate figures are available prior to 1951.

United Kingdom—Commonwealth Trade

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, as a percentage of our total world trade, the United Kingdom's exports to and imports from the Commonwealth declined in all the main categories in 1950 as compared with 1949; and if this trend has now been reversed.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says—

Mr. Speaker: We have now done 29 Questions in 42 minutes. Let us get at any rate a few more in.

Mining Machinery Exports

Mr. Baker White: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of mining machinery have been sent and will be sent to Czechoslovakia and other East European States under existing commercial agreements.

Sir H. Shawcross: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have no commitments to supply mining machinery under any trade agreement with countries in Eastern Europe. Export is not permitted of any type to which there is objection on security grounds or on grounds of essential home needs.

Following are the figures:

Sir H. Shawcross: The decline in 1950 in the Commonwealth share of United Kingdom trade was mainly due to the recovery, from its low post-war level, of our trade with Western Europe. The marked increase in the sterling value of our exports to the United States of America, and reduced imports of grain from Canada, also contributed. The Commonwealth share of both imports and exports in 1950 was, however, larger than in any year from 1930–38.
As regards the second part of the Question, in the first four months of this year the proportion of United Kingdom imports coming from the Commonwealth


has increased, but the proportion of United Kingdom exports going to Commonwealth countries was slightly lower than in 1950. Shipping difficulties have, however, held up exports to certain Commonwealth countries and seasonal factors may influence trade figures for periods of less than a year.

Mr. Fisher: While glad that this trend has to some extent been corrected, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will assure the House that it is his policy to defend the implementation of, and indeed to increase, a system of strong Imperial Preference?

Sir H. Shawcross: His Majesty's Government certainly continue to regard Imperial Preference as of great importance in their policy of maximising trade with the Commonwealth. I certainly desire in all ways to increase trade with different parts of the Commonwealth and Empire.

Dock Strike, Manchester (Cargoes)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to ensure that no cargoes essential to British industry and the re-armament drive are being held up as a result of the Manchester dock strike.

Sir H. Shawcross: The position is being closely watched. Although some important cargoes are being delayed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I are satisfied that so far essential production has not been held up.

Newsprint Supplies

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on supplies of newsprint from Canada and other sources; and to what extent the home mills are now required to export newsprint.

Sir H. Shawcross: Supplies of newsprint from home and overseas include 100,000 tons from Canada in 1950–51 and should be sufficient to maintain a six-page newspaper in 1951. We also hope to maintain exports at the rate of 100,000 tons per annum, entirely to Commonwealth markets; but we may not be able to make up for the short shipments in April and May resulting

from reduced output on the part of one of our principal producers.

Mr. Hurd: In the further arrangement which I think the Newsprint Supply Company are making for future supplies from Canada, have the Government been able to give an assurance that the Company will be allowed to proceed, and will not be forced to break any future contracts?

Sir H. Shawcross: I believe it is a cardinal rule, which all Governments have to observe, that they cannot bind the future executive action of His Majesty's Government of the time.

Steel Exports

Mr. Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will take steps to discontinue the export of steel, which is badly needed in this country, for the construction of railways in northern Persia.

Sir H. Shawcross: I have given this matter careful consideration, but I do not think that in the present circumstances the action which the hon. Member suggests would be appropriate.

Mr. Fisher: Does not one of the railways under construction actually link up with the Russian railway system; and is it not rather regrettable that our own steel, of which we stand in very great need for re-armament, may be used for conveying our own oil to our only potential enemy?

Sir H. Shawcross: I am, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, keeping a close watch on the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can yet make a statement following his investigation into the causes of the great increase in convictions for drunkenness.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the concern about this matter and the fact that my right hon. Friend mentioned several months ago that he was looking into it, when might we expect to have a statement?

Mr. Ede: It was not some months ago that I mentioned this; it was only about six weeks ago. This is a very complicated question, to which I can bring no personal experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (PAY)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the failure of the appeal for recruits to the police forces to attract sufficient men to bring the forces up to establishment, and, in view of the large numbers of trained and experienced officers leaving the service and of the high average efficiency in the police forces and the fact that their small size diminishes the chance of promotion, he will consider increases in the payment of the police to be made on the basis of a rising scale, in accordance with seniority in the service coupled with efficiency and independent of promotion.

Mr. Ede: The present scale of pay for constables, containing in addition to annual increments in the earlier years of service automatic increments at 10, 15 and 22 years' service, was introduced in July, 1949, on the recommendation of the Oaksey Committee in substitution for an earlier system which provided special increments for special zeal and efficiency, which were not generally popular in the service, and long-service increments in the latter years of service. While I share the hon. Member's desire that the present manpower difficulties from which the police service is suffering should be resolved and his appreciation of its high average efficiency, the recruiting picture is not so universally dismal as he suggests, and I am not satisfied that the modified pay system which he proposes would represent any real improvement on the present one or secure the support of the service or the Police Council. A meeting of the Council is being held in the near future to consider an application which has been made by the representative organisations of the service for an increase in police pay.

Mrs. Braddock: Can my right hon. Friend say what is meant by the near future? This answer was given to me over 18 days ago.

Mr. Ede: In this matter the near future means 19th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TAXICAB FARES (INCREASE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
68. Wing Commander BULLUS,—To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the proposed increase in taxicab fares in the London area.

Mr. Ede: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 68.
I made an Order yesterday the effect of which is to increase the present surcharge on taxicab fares in the Metropolitan Police district and the City of London from one-third to two-thirds of the amounts shown on the meter. The Order, which will come into operation on 4th June, also provides that the extra charge of 6d. at present payable for both the third and fourth passengers, will, in future, be payable for the second passenger also.
I have also given instructions for the alteration of the existing meters to indicate a scale of fares similar to that authorised by the amending Order. It is necessary for reasons connected with the mechanism of the meters to adopt a slightly different scale, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the two scales. As soon as the necessary preparations have been made for altering the meters, I propose to make a further order authorising the scale of charges indicated on them. It will be unavoidable that the two scales of charges will be in force simultaneously for some little time.
I have reached these decisions after very careful consideration of the representations made to me by the various interests concerned, and I am satisfied that these increases are necessary in order to enable a public service of taxicabs to be provided on an economic basis. I should like to express my appreciation of the assistance which I have received from Sir Alan Rae Smith who, at my request, again undertook the task of examining the present financial position of the industry.

Wing Commander Bullus: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a very serious increase on the ever increasing cost of transport and of


living. Can he say when the new meters will be ready, because much confusion will be caused to visitors, particularly at this time of the year, in London and the surrounding district?

Mr. Ede: It will take some considerable time to complete the alteration of the meters. I understand that the trade are to put the matter in hand at once. To assist in the intervening period, the police, the owners and the drivers have collaborated in the formulation of a better type of placard to be placed inside the cabs, so as to avoid some of the confusion and the disputes which have arisen in recent months.

Mrs. Jean Mann: How many rides does an M.P. have to take in a taxi before it becomes his own?

Mr. Ede: According to the figures which were placed in front of me, unless the fares had been raised the taxis would have been given away as a gift.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent these additional charges are justified by the increase in the Petrol Duty?

Mr. Ede: To some extent. There was a case for an increase before that increase was put on.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider placing on the placards which are to be put into the taxis during the change-over period instructions in French and German, as well as in English, in view of the large number of foreigners in this country?

Mr. Ede: The figures are put in two colours so as to help people to understand them.

Mr. Jennings: Would the Home Secretary consider giving hon. Members further details to enable them to decide whether what appears to be an exhorbitant increase in the taxi rate is justified?

Mr. Ede: I shall be quite willing to answer any Question that may be put on the Order Paper about this matter. It was most carefully considered, and the

owners of the taxi-cabs are of the opinion that this is not a sufficient increase, but on the advice I received from Sir Alan Rae Smith it is all that I was prepared to authorise.

Mr. Eden: What chance does the right hon. Gentleman think there is of the meters being ready before the next increase in price comes along?

Mr. Ede: I did give that matter some consideration, and this increase does, I think, allow for some slight additional increase in costs before a further claim would be justified.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will any part of this increase be devoted to improving the remuneration of the drivers?

Mr. Ede: The drivers are paid a percentage of the takings. Of every 8d. increase they will get 3d., and they will get some advantage from the 6d. which, in future, will be paid for the second passenger instead of the second passenger being included in the meter charge.

Sir Ian Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this charge on the public will, nevertheless, give great satisfaction to the drivers?

Mr. Ede: I hope that the use of the word "great" will be justified.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: While not challenging the validity or justification of the decision just announced by my right hon. Friend, may I ask if he does not consider that it would be in the public interest for future decisions on taxicab fares to be referred to a specially selected tribunal, open to the public, so that people generally may be made fully aware of the circumstances leading up to any alteration of fares in future?

Mr. Ede: I will consider that.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: In view of the increase are we supposed to tip on the same scale as before?

Mr. Ede: That is a matter for individual conscience.

Following is the table:


Distance (up to but not including)
Scale of fares based on a surcharge of 66⅔ per cent. on the fares shown on existing taximeters
Scale of fares to be shown on amended taximeters


(miles)
s.
d.
s.
d.



3/5


1
3


⅔

1
3





4/5


1
6


1
1
1
8
1
9



11/5


2
0


1⅓

2
1





12/5


2
3



13/5


2
6


1⅔

2
6





14/5


2
9


2
2
2
11
3
0



21/5


3
3


2⅓

3
4





22/5


3
6



23/5


3
9


2⅔

3
9





24/5


4
0


3
3
4
2
4
3



32/5


4
6


3⅓

4
7





32/5


4
9



33/5


5
0


3⅔

5
0





34/5


5
3


4
4
5
5
5
6



41/5


5
9


4⅓

5
10





42/5


6
0



43/5


6
3


4⅔

6
3





44/5


6
6


5
5
6
8
6
9



51/5


7
0


5⅓

7
1





52/5


7
3



53/5


7
6


5⅔

7
6





54/5


7
9


6
6
7
11
8
0

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA CONSTITUTION (DISCUSSIONS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
94. Mr. THOMAS REID,—To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on Kenya's Constitution, in the light of his discussions during his recent visit to East Africa.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House. I will answer Question No. 94.
During my visit to Kenya I had the great advantage of full discussion on the subject of the constitution with all the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, representing, as they do, all sections of the public. These discussions revealed disagreement between the groups, but I found a general anxiety on the part of all the Members, which I warmly welcomed, to secure an agreed solution, and, at the request of the leaders of the Unofficial groups, I propose that within 12 months of the beginning of the life of the next Legislative Council in May, 1952, a body should be set up representative of all groups in the Council, under an independent Chairman from outside Kenya, to consider what constitutional changes should be made.
I have agreed with the leaders of the Unofficial groups that, pending the setting up of this body, there should be no major change in the constitution, although I propose to make certain interim adjustments early in 1952. In view of the importance of the whole question, I am circulating a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT which gives details of the interim adjustments in view.

Mr. Reid: Does my right hon. Friend realise the soundness of his policy of putting responsibility for their own welfare so far as possible on local people of all races in the community?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I was very anxious, and, indeed, used whatever influence I had, and all my efforts, to endeavour to secure that this and other problems are studied, and I hope settled, on a basis of racial community co-operation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the very great importance of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I know he will understand if we make no great contribution today to what he has said but await the fuller report. Meanwhile, are we to assume, when the right hon. Gentleman says that there will be no major constitutional changes in 1952, that this means that during that period parity will be preserved? Second, would it not be a very good thing meanwhile, and while this body is sitting, if all parties, both here and in Kenya, regard this matter as sub judice, and that nothing is said, either here or in Kenya, which will endanger an


agreed solution, because an imposed solution will only exacerbate racial relations?

Mr. Griffiths: There will be no changes in parity during the interim period when this body will be having discussions. It is definitely understood that I, speaking for the Government, do not accept parity as essential, any more than I accept any of the other proposals put before me. What this provides is an opportunity for all communities to come together and work out an agreed programme as to proposed future constitutional changes. There has been for some time an undertone of racial tension in Kenya and it is my very earnest hope that we shall do everything we possibly can to promote co-operation between races there, because only by co-operation can they build successfully for the future.

Colonel Ropner: Is this question being considered alone or at the same time as the question of federation with Tanganyika and Uganda is being considered? Is it not quite impossible to consider alone the constitution of Kenya if the question of federation has not been decided?

Mr. Griffiths: I made a very full statement last December on the policy of the Government in regard to East Africa. I then said that for the time being we must consider all these changes separately in each of the countries.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of their possible importance, will not the right hon. Gentleman indicate now at least the chief of the interim adjustments which he proposes to make next year?

Mr. Griffiths: I would rather hon. Members studied the full statement. There are quite a number of interim adjustments which are being made and I would not like to take up one of them and emphasise that as being the most important. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait and read the fuller report.

Mr. Alport: In view of the fact that the High Commission comes up for revision at the end of this year, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during his discussions with unofficial Members in East Africa, he received any views about the future of the High

Commission, and when he will be able to make a statement on that?

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question on that subject. The statement which I have made today deals entirely with the possible constitutional changes in Kenya itself.

Following is the statement:

As I made clear in my statement of policy on East Africa in the House of Commons on 13th December, 1950, future policy must be worked out in full consultation with those who belong to the territories. In recent years His Majesty's Government has aimed, whenever possible, at associating representatives of the people of colonial territories in the working out of constitutional changes. I am convinced that that is the right course in Kenya. His Majesty's Government, which bears the ultimate responsibility, must make the final decisions. But I am certain that those decisions will rest on firmer foundations if, when changes fall to be made, they are based on agreement to be worked out by representatives of the people of Kenya.

Notwithstanding that agreement had not been reached in earlier talks with the Governor, I found a general anxiety on the part of all the representatives to secure an agreed solution. I have warmly welcomed this and, at the request of the leaders of the Unofficial groups in the Legislative Council, whom I met all together immediately before leaving Kenya. I propose that the following steps should be taken. Within 12 months of the beginning of the life of the next Legislative Council, i.e., within 12 months of May, 1952, a body should be set up representative of all groups in the Council, under an independent Chairman from outside Kenya, to consider what constitutional changes should be made.

In the meantime, there would be no major change in the constitution in 1952, although I propose to make certain interim adjustments which I will detail later in this statement. Representatives of the Government of Kenya will be included on the body to which I have referred and a representative of the Colonial Office will be associated with it. If desired, I would be prepared to obtain the services of a constitutional expert to advise the body on technical questions.

This body will consider the whole constitutional field including, of course, the composition of the Legislative Council. I have found general agreement in Kenya that, in accordance with my statement of policy of 13th December, 1950, in the House of Commons, the ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's Government for the administration of Kenya must be maintained at the present time; I would not, therefore, expect this responsibility to be discussed by the body to which I have referred. But all other matters relating to the constitution will come within its terms of reference.

The conclusions of the consultative body will be laid before the Governor and, with his observations, before the Secretary of State, and


the ultimate decisions will then lie with His Majesty's Government. Since nothing more than adjustments will be made in 1952, it must be understood that, should it not be possible for agreement to be reached through this process of consultation, His Majesty's Government will be free to take its own decisions. It is my earnest hope, however, that agreement will be reached, in which case the agreed conclusions could be brought into force either in 1956, at the end of the life of the next Council, or, if there were agreement to do so, at an earlier date.

To give time for consultations on the lines which I have indicated and on the understanding that those consultations will take place, I propose that the interim adjustments to be made should involve no disturbance of the present proportions of representation on the Unofficial side of the Legislative Council in the Council which will be elected in 1952. I have made it clear to the leaders of the various groups in Kenya that in saying this I must not be taken as accepting the view that the maintenance of parity between the European Members and the other Members on the Unofficial side of the Legislative Council is essential, any more than I am accepting, during this interim phase, the other views and proposals which were put before me. What I am proposing is an interim arrangement which will give time for consultation and discussion among the various groups in the hope that agreement will be reached in this way.

I now come to the interim adjustments to be made in 1952, which will, or course, be subject to review by the consultative body. In the first place I accept the view of the Governor that the time has now come for the seat on the Executive Council which is designated as being in the African interest to be held by an African on the next occurrence of a vacancy. In the second place I have been impressed by the practical arguments put before me by the African Members in asking for some immediate increase in African representation on the Unofficial side of the Legislative Council and I propose that, for the interim period and pending examination by the consultative body, African membership should be increased from four to six.

Thirdly, and for practical reasons connected with the appropriate representation of the different sections of the Indian community, I propose that the Indian representation should be increased by one, from five to six. While I realise that arrangements must be made to ensure that the Muslim section of that community secures sufficient representation, by which I mean a minimum of two seats, I earnestly hope that means may be found of achieving that object without creating separate electorates within the Indian community, who will, I trust, make a genuine and sincere effort to find an agreed solution of this problem. Fourthly, I have given most careful and sympathetic consideration to the representations of the Arab community, being most anxious to do all in my power to encourage inter-racial co-operation. I feel that their reasonable aspirations can be met within the membership of the Official side of the Council.

Fifthly, since it is part of the arrangement I have described that there should be no dis-

turbance in 1952 of the present balance of the Unofficial side of the Council, and entirely without prejudice to the full examination of this matter by the consultative body, I propose that the increases in African and Indian representation on the Unofficial side of the Council should be balanced by an increase of three Europeans from 11 to 14. The effect of these adjustments will be that the Unofficial side of the Council will, for the interim period beginning in May next year, number 28 seats.

I now turn to the Official side of the Council. I have found general agreement in Kenya that the present disparity in numbers between Official and Unofficial Members is excessive; with the addition of six seats on the Unofficial side this disparity becomes so excessive that it must be corrected. I therefore propose to increase the Official membership from 16 to 26, that is to say (not counting the Speaker) two fewer than the Unofficial side. I propose that the constitutional instruments should be amended so as to enable the Governor, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to nominate these additional Members from within or without the public service, so that he may be able to invite persons of appropriate standing and qualifications to accept membership of the Legislative Council and thus make a substantial contribution, as Sir Charles Mortimer is now doing, to the work of the Council. Such nominated Members will, of course, be required to support the Government when called upon to do so on a motion of confidence. The Governor will make his nominations on grounds of merit and ability and not on a basis of representation of the different communities; but I have no doubt that he will, in fact, make his selections from the widest field, that is including all communities; and as I have already indicated, one at least of these Members will be an Arab.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Would the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. The business will be as follows:

MONDAY, 4TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Telegraph Bill.

Further progress will be made with the Coal Industry Bill and completion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill, if not already completed.

TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY and THURSDAY, 5TH, 6TH and 7TH JUNE—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

FRIDAY, 8TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Eden: The Leader of the House will remember that the Foreign Secretary told us he would keep us informed about


the Persian situation. I wonder if he can say when we may expect another statement, in view of the fact that the situation is clearly one of continuing gravity?

Mr. Ede: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me verbal notice that he proposed to put this question. I tried to get in touch with the Foreign Secretary to see if I could give the right hon. Gentleman a definite answer, but I have been unable to do so. However, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend intends to stand by the pledge he gave the House and I will let him know that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about getting an early statement.

Mr. Churchill: Can the Leader of the House give us any idea when the Government will be able to make a further statement on the subject of the Atlantic and Mediterranean Commands?

Mr. Ede: I was rather more fortunate with regard to that. I did manage to get the Minister of Defence here. He informed me that the matter is still under negotiation and that as soon as those negotiations are completed a statement will be made.

Mr. Churchill: Yes, but I was asking whether the answer could have some relation to the time factor. How much longer are we to wait?

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend assures me he is doing his best to get a decision, but, so far, has not been successful.

Mrs. Middleton: In view of the fact that certain recommendations of the Zachary Cope Report on auxiliary medical services are being stabilised by legislation passed before the House has had a chance of considering the Report, will

my right hon. Friend make provision for the consideration of that Report at an early date?

Mr. Ede: I will consider that in conjunction with the Minister concerned and with the hon. Members interested.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is on the Order Paper a Motion calling attention to the need to secure a cease fire in Korea and also dealing with our relations with China? In view of the great importance of the question of Korea and China will he give serious attention to allotting time to the discussion of that Motion?

[That this House approves of the recent statement of the Secretary of State for War stressing the dangers to world peace and the futility of extending the Korean war to China and resulting bombardment and bombing of the Chinese cities and the slaughter of millions of their inhabitants; declares that the time has come to end the war in Korea and that His Majesty's Government should take further immediate steps to initiate negotiations for a cease fire, for the withdrawal of foreign armies, and for measures of relief and reconstruction to repair the destruction and ravages of war and to alleviate the sufferings of the Korean people.]

Mr. Ede: That is a matter which possibly could be discussed on a Supply Day.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the great anxiety in the country about the ever-increasing cost of living, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the problem of wages, dividends and general prices?

Mr. Ede: Again, I should have thought that that was a matter which might come on in the ordinary course of business.

Orders of the Day — RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause.—(NOTICE FOR DISCONTINUANCE OF POLLUTION, ETC.)

(1) Where any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is permitted to enter any stream or part of a stream, the river board may give notice of complaint in writing to the person who is permitting such matter to enter that stream or that part thereof, requiring him within a time to be specified in the notice (not being less than three months), to remove the grounds of complaint to which the notice refers.

(2) The river board may, if they think fit, at any time and from time to time extend the time specified in any notice given under subsection (1) of this section by another notice in writing.

(3) Any person to whom any notice is given by the river board under this section shall, within the time allowed by the notice of complaint or any extended time allowed by a subsequent notice, remove the grounds of complaint to which the notice refers, and in default of so doing shall be liable to the penalties laid down in subsection (6) of section two of this Act.

(4) Any notice given under this section by the river board to the owner or occupier of any land shall continue in force, notwithstanding any temporary or partial removal of the grounds of complaint, and notwithstanding any change in the ownership or occupation of such land.—[Mr. Nugent.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members who were on the Committee which considered the Bill will not be surprised at my moving this new Clause, because I undertook that I would put it down on the Report stage. The discussion that we had in Committee enabled us to get from the right hon. Gentleman about half of what we were asking for. In the Amendment which he put down to Clause 5 (5), he met the point about the non-conforming effluent and devised some sort of flexibility which would enable river boards to deal with this problem. We have put down the proposed new Clause to enable river boards to deal with the problem of the low-grade effluent or breaches of standard which may occur after standards have been set up.
In the Scottish Bill it has been recognised that some flexibility of this kind is necessary. There is in it a Clause which allows river boards to license offending effluents. It may be said—I believe that this is the official view—that such a provision is not needed in the Bill because it would be the normal administrative procedure, but I ask the Minister to bear in mind that here is a new piece of legislation, for the river boards set up in the 1948 Act, and that it may well be wise to define exactly how they are expected to proceed. The proposed new Clause gives the river boards a definite line on which to proceed when they encounter an effluent which falls below the standard which they have set up and some procedure for prosecuting a discharger of an offending effluent.
The normal sort of procedure which may be expected is that the river board's purification officer will find an effluent which is below the standard required, whether it is from a local authority sewage works or from a factory. He will report it to his river board. The report on that low grade effluent will be made to the river board, who will then decide what they wish to do. Their normal procedure would be to send a letter to the discharger of the offending effluent requiring him to bring his effluent up to the definite standard.
The proposed new Clause seeks to put that exactly in the Bill, so that the river boards know exactly where they are in regard to procedure. They would normally require the discharger to comply within a given period. Let us suppose that would be a period of three months' notice to bring the effluent up to the required standard, after which the purification officer would make his report again. If the effluent were still below the standard, the river board could, if it wished, extend the notice.
That kind of procedure is fairly common under existing local and private Acts that have been dealing with rivers. It is to be found in most of those Acts, it has been shown to be a valuable procedure and it is desirable that it should be in the new Measure. The river board then proceeds to extend the notice as it thinks expedient in the particular case, provided that the board is satisfied that the discharger of the effluent is doing all he can to bring his effluent


up to the proper standard. If at any time he is not doing it, the river board can follow another procedure.
This is a perfectly simple and straightforward new Clause which will assist river boards in their administration and will enable them to have that measure of flexibility which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes them to have. The last thing we wish to see is river boards continually prosecuting people. We want to see them get the right result of higher-grade effluent by administrative action, preserving good relationships between themselves and the people who discharge the effluents.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Fort: While appreciating the strength of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that if we do bring the proposed new Clause into the Bill the result will be to leave a considerable measure of uncertainty in the mind of everyone as to where he stands. There are very clear recommendations in paragraph 77 of the Hobday Report on the subject of those who are concerned with the polluting of rivers knowing exactly where they stand. In that paragraph, Mr. Garner, Chief Inspector of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board, said:
It seems that if there is legislation which does not take into account the setting up of standards to be stipulated either by some central authority or by river boards, we shall be in a very serious position.
The late Mr. Turing, representing the British Field Sports Society, said very much the same thing.
My own feeling, in reading the proposed new Clause, is that it will leave this uncertainty in everyone's mind, although I realise that it is attempting to meet a very real difficulty about what is known as the non-conforming effluent. After the discussion which we had on this matter in Committee, I am bound to say that I am a little disappointed that the Minister, with the great resources which he has at his disposal, did not produce a rather fuller Amendment later which would have covered the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and other hon. Members made in Com-

mittee. I hope that it will not be impossible for him to say now that he will introduce in another place an Amendment which will cover the point more satisfactorily than the present drafting Amendment does.

Mr. David Renton: Like the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) about the proposed new Clause. It appears to me to have the danger that matters may be left in uncertainty which may be prolonged for an indefinite time. That would be so after a river board had tried to get the machinery of the Bill thoroughly well established. I invite the hon. Member's attention to Clause 5 (6), on page 6 of the Bill, where we find that before making any by-laws which would fix the standard the river board have to give notice of their intention
to any body of persons designated to them for this purpose by the Minister as being representative of a class of persons having a material interest in the waters of the stream.
If that notice is properly given, it will be unnecessary at a later date, having fixed the standard and having made the bylaws, to give a further warning notice. It seems that if Clause 5 (6) is worked effectively, a Clause on the lines now suggested would be unnecessary.
I happen to know that the proposed new Clause has given some anxiety to anglers in my constituency. I hope that the hon. Member for Guildford will not consider my own speech too much in the nature of a non-conforming effluent.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I have received reports about the Clause from what must be the last surviving fishery board, that at Wellingborough. I agree substantially with the comments that have been made by the hon. Members for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and Huntingdon (Mr. Renton).
There are two objections to the Clause. First, I am not sure whether it had escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) that he is adding an offence to the punishable offences under the Bill. At present, under Clause 2, people are liable if they cause or knowingly permit polluting matter to get into the water, but in the proposed new Clause the word "knowingly" is omitted, and consequently penalties are


provided against someone who unconsciously permits this to happen. The two Clauses, when taken together, produce very considerable difficulties. The new Clause complicates the issue of what is and what is not an offence under the Bill.
I dislike the Clause for another reason. It does not add elasticity to the Bill. I believe that it has the opposite effect. It is the practice in all these cases to give warning and usually to enter into some kind of negotiation and discussion beforehand. That has been done for many years. It is now proposed to substitute for that excellent practice a rigid period of three months during which remedial steps could be taken. I feel that such arrangements, for substantially the reasons which have already been given, might allow a somewhat under-active river board to delay proceedings which it ought to take. Although one appreciates the intention behind the Clause, it would complicate the Bill, make it rather more difficult to deal with actual cases and add nothing to the clear statement which already appears in Clause 2 about punishable offences.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not think that the point which has been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is a real one. Someone who had notice would know what was the matter complained of, and the essence of the Clause is to give that notice.
Two streams of thought are mingling in the House at the present time. There are those who are concerned from the angling point of view with keeping the water clear, I would not say at whatever cost, but almost at whatever cost, and there are those who are concerned with avoiding undue interference with industry and local authorities, again I would not say at whatever cost, but at any rate at some considerable cost. Somehow we must reconcile those two conflicting interests. The proposed Clause is an attempt to effect that reconciliation.
It is plain that if we set too high a standard we shall do serious damage to certain undertakings and local authorities. On the other hand, if we set too low a standard we shall not carry out the real purpose of the Bill, which is the prevention of pollution. Somehow we must devise a means of covering the exceptional

case. We may have an undertaking, whether local government or industrial, which cannot very readily, certainly in the present state of affairs, put its house in order and prevent offensive effluent from being discharged; but it has to be dealt with in some way.
My view—it is shared by some of my hon. Friends—is that as a rule we should have a high standard but within it we must necessarily have at first certain exceptions. It is better to do that than to begin with a low standard and try to push it up generally. The purpose of the Clause is to enable a high standard to be set in the first place and the special exceptions which may exist to be dealt with. On the whole, it is better to deal with the matter by such means than by means of a licence, which we discussed in Committee.
The Clause will have the effect of putting constant pressure on the offender to stop committing an offence. He will never be able to sit down and say, "That is all right. I have my licence and can now continue." He will constantly have a warning that he is an offender and he will know that sooner or later the authority will clamp down on him and tell him to put things right. I believe that is the right way to deal with the matter, and for that reason I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic reply on the Clause.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): There is evidently some difference of view on this point. We discussed many of these matters at considerable length in Committee, and even then there were differences of view. They did not at all extend to party differences; they were differences between those who are interested in the subject regardless of party.
I am inclined to think that the proposed Clause does not really improve the Bill. However, I shall be prepared later—Clause 5 might be an appropriate place—to see whether we can meet any of the points which have been raised by the supporters of the Clause. But the Clause as drafted rather cuts across the procedure laid down in the Bill. Clause 5 (5) provides that people who discharge effluents may be given time to ensure that their effluents comply with the standard prescribed by the by-laws, and Clause 8 (2) contains the requirements for the


Minister's consent, for a certain period, to proceedings. Both are valuable provisions. When we get to those Clauses, I shall be happy to listen to arguments on how they might be further strengthened, but I believe that we have there the elements of what is required.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) observed, the argument against the new Clause is that it makes a bare failure to comply with a notice, without any proof of actual pollution, subject to considerable penalties. That is a very doubtful principle to introduce. It certainly multiplies the penalties without real justification. Subsections (1) and (2) of the new Clause are really unnecessary, because the river boards have power now to give notice and to allow offenders to execute work before proceedings are taken.
I should have thought that, instead of putting provisions of that sort into the Bill, a better plan would be to embody some general guidance and encouragement to river boards, in regard to the lines along which they should act, in an explanatory circular which is, in any case, due to be issued as an administrative act when the Bill becomes law. I have it in mind to issue such a circular, and I should be glad to be assisted by hon. Members as to its contents. I should have thought that that would have been a more suitable means of conveying the provision in those two subsections than by injecting them into the Bill.
There is not much purpose in putting into an Act of Parliament measures which really have no binding effect, as these would not have, since they are merely an expression of hope that the board will do this or that. I believe that subsections (3) and (4) are in some respects unreasonable. Quite severe penalties are laid down in Clause 2 (6). Under the new Clause, the river board would be able, merely by serving a notice, to by-pass the need for getting the Minister's consent to tie proceedings and make the person concerned subject to the penalties. I should have thought that that was rather rough. As I have already said, they would define mere non-compliance with the notice as an offence, and I cannot think that, on further reflection, the House would want to do that.
In Committee we had friendly and helpful discussions, and I am quite prepared to consider any improvements that can be made as we go along Clause by Clause. Also I have put down a number of Amendments to meet the points raised in Committee. However, I do not think this new Clause would be helpful, and in view of the fact that several hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed doubts about it, I hope it will not be pressed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister recognises, as we all do, that the discussion of this Bill is certainly not following any party line, and the House has already had witness of that. Those of us who set down the new Clause hoped it might be considered as a substitute for Clause 5 (5), because obviously it would be wrong to have the two running together; we put down the Clause also on the grounds advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), that in many local and other Acts it has been found desirable to place these words actually in the Statute.
I agree that it is dangerous to try to put too many things in a Statute and, if one can get away without that, so much the better. Therefore, I was rather attracted by the assurance of the Minister, first, that he had in mind issuing a circular, and, secondly, that in the terms of that circular he might find it possible to consult with those on both sides of the House who were interested in this matter. That might go a long way to meet the views of those of us who have set down these proposals.
I call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to the effect of subsection (5), which is that a state of uncertainty will inevitably persist whatever happens. That is to say, under subsection (5), if a person who has been discharging any effluent into the stream proposes to take steps to ensure that the effluent will comply, but the steps cannot be completed before the date when the bylaws come into force, he may apply to the board, and then the board may direct that for such period as may be specified in that or in any subsequent direction the effluent will be treated as complying with those standards. Therefore, the whole thing hangs of the words:


for such period as may be specified in that or any subsequent direction.…
We are dealing here with an inevitable period of uncertainty and we cannot get rid of it whatever words we write into the Statute. We thought the warning notice might be the simplest method. The person might not know that he was trespassing until his attention was called to it. Although it has been said by certain hon. Members that writing a letter is the normal administrative procedure, nevertheless in other Acts it has been found desirable to embody those words in the Statute.
We have a long series of Amendments on the Order Paper, but I believe that with friendly co-operation they need not take as long as perhaps one would fear from looking at the weight of the Order Paper. Perhaps, on the assurance given by the Minister that not only will a circular be drafted but that hon. Members on all sides of the House will be consulted as far as is reasonable, it might be possible for my hon. Friends not to press this new Clause.

Mr. Nugent: In the light of the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman that he will send out a circular and will consult with those who are interested, I reluctantly—because I would have preferred to see this in the Bill, where it would be better—beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I am not calling the next new Clause.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why my new Clause, relating to annual reports of river boards, the object of which was accepted by the Minister in Committee, is out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I have been into this matter rather carefully and I understand that an effort was made to table an Amendment which would be in order. However, the hard-hearted people in the Order Office found it was out of order. Therefore, this must fall out of order, too, as it is outside the scope of the Bill. If I may suggest it to the hon. Member, if his new Clause is slightly altered, it might be put down in another place and considered there. I am very sorry that it cannot be called now.

Mr. Colegate: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that Section 4 of the River Boards Act, 1948, makes it quite clear that 95 per cent. of the functions of river boards have to do with river pollution?

Mr. Speaker: That Act goes much further. This Bill has a very narrow title, and that would be going right outside its scope. I can assure the hon. Member that this was gone into most carefully and it is out of order. I am sorry.

Clause 1.—(PRELIMINARY.)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "county," to insert "or county borough."
This is designed to assist the Croydon Corporation. It does not so appear on the face of the Amendment, but that is its purpose. At the moment the Croydon Corporation may exercise authority by means of the 1876 Act and they are the only county borough so set out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(PROHIBITION ON USE OF STREAM FOR DISPOSAL OF POLLUTING MATTER, REFUSE, ETC.)

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "stream," and to insert "channel."
I think it is your wish, Mr. Speaker, that I should cover all the Amendments standing in my name in speaking to this Amendment. I think I owe an apology not only to you, Sir, and to this House for putting down so many Amendments, but also to the unfortunate Parliamentary printers. I did my best to avoid embarrassing them in that way, but I took advice from the Table and found there was no other way of doing it. I hope, therefore, that the House will try to bear with me if I condense as far as possible the main points which I would have made if I had been allowed to move the Amendments in each case.

Mr. Speaker: The new Clause having been withdrawn, there was no opportunity for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move his Amendments to it.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hesitated to foretell the future, Mr. Speaker, with the accuracy which you show.
May I say that all these Amendments are based on one premise and that is that the word "stream" is likely to cause confusion both now and in the future. The use of the word "stream" in the sense in which it is used in this Bill originates from the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and the definition is similar to that which is in Clause 10 of the Bill. There has been a slight alteration, but I need not worry the House with setting out the exact difference.
In Clause 10, page 11, line 16, it will be seen that a stream is defined as including
any river, stream, watercourse or inland water (whether natural or artificial), except…any lake or pond which does not discharge to a stream; or…any sewer vested in a local local authority or…tidal waters;".
Although it was done in the 1876 Act, I must confess that I have a dislike to making a collective noun include itself. When one does that, one gets the position of torturing the English language to a degree which is never justified. By saying that a stream includes a stream and other things, it means that the stream includes itself and other things and therefore is greater than itself, yet being a part of what is greater than the whole, it is also smaller than the greater whole. [Laughter.] It seems to me that when we are introducing legislation, whatever our ancestors may have done—they probably did it with good intent—if we can tidy up the wording a little, we should take the opportunity of doing so.
I am not at all sure that, so far as something containing itself is concerned, hon. Members of this House are always the most suitable to decide whether it does or not. Of course, I class myself in that category. Surely, it is taking our language to the extreme. Not only does one word in it mean what it usually means, but it is also given several other meanings for which there are far better words in the language.
The word "stream" in the definition in the old Act conjures up in the minds of a great many people an entirely different impression. If a person is a fly fisherman, he obviously has a quite different conception of it from that of the water engineer. Then we have the other form of the use of the word "stream," of which, perhaps, Oxford in particular this year are rather conscious, and that is the

vast force of water which either assists or prevents boats from proceeding through the water.
It seems to me that the word "stream" is a little unsuited to cover what we particularly want it to cover. The only common denominator of the word is that the water moves, but there is nothing common as to the width, depth or weight, and, as a result of this Bill, some importance is attached to those measurements. My series of Amendments forms an attempt to provide a collective noun which will not only cover everyone's different interpretation of the word "stream," but will, in addition, include rivers, watercourses, drains, ditches, and all other inland waters, save lakes, ponds, local authority sewers and certain tidal waters.
In selecting that word, I have tried to take the best possible advice. Since the Committee stage of this Bill, there has been a very important report presented to Parliament which we hope may perhaps one day lead to better legislation on a subject other than river pollution. It is the Report of the Land Drainage Legislation Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee, and that subcommittee was an extremely representative body. In addition to having representatives from most of the main interests concerned with the management of channels of various sorts, it had the services as assessors of six senior civil servants from the Ministries of Health, Transport, and Agriculture and Fisheries. I claim that that phrase contains more "s's" than any I have heard for a long time. In other words, it was a very highly qualified sub-committee. I think we might very well let them help us in this matter of definition, and try to follow their advice if we possibly can.
Paragraph 38 of that Report is the one to which I particularly wish to refer this afternoon. In it, the sub-committee have sub-divided the various types of channels in the country into watercourses, drains and ditches, using the term "channel" as the collective noun with which to describe them all and any other form of waterway, or whatever we like to call it. I am well aware of Parliament's dislike of putting what I might perhaps call newly-reported wine into old legislative bottles. I would certainly hesitate to suggest that we should do that in the normal course of events.
We cannot amend the Report. It has been called for by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to amending land drainage legislation. The authorities affected by that Report are the same authorities as those affected in varying degrees by this Bill. Just because they are discussing land drainage, it is really ridiculous to insist on their using the collective noun "channel" for the purpose of describing water, yet when they are reviewing river pollution they must use the word "stream."
Therefore, we have the Report using the word "channel" and this Bill using the word "stream," which may have been all right in the past, but which is certainly not a very accurate description of what we want to describe in it. In suggesting that we should adopt one little piece of the Report for our own procedure, I wish to make it quite clear that I am not in any way committing myself to supporting the recommendations of the Report as a whole. Certainly, so far as my own division is concerned, I think that the main recommendation which they make is one about which we would want to have some assurances before we could possibly accept it, because as it stands it might jeopardise very considerably such districts as the Fens. No doubt there will be an opportunity later to debate that matter at length, and I certainly do not wish to impose it upon the House now.
I ask the House, if it possibly can, to accept the terminology used by that subcommittee in describing what in this Bill we are at present describing by the word "stream." As I have already said, that sub-committee very wisely decided to subdivide the collective channels into three categories dependent upon those bodies or individuals who would be responsible for their maintenance. Those bodies and individuals are the same as those covered by this Bill, the river boards, the internal drainage boards—which we hope are safeguarded by this Bill—and the riparian owners and occupiers who have considerable responsibilities and some safeguards under this Bill.
I think that is the right way in which to approach the problem, because it is not the various types of channels which will have to administer this Bill, but the authorities themselves. I think the sub-

committee have hit upon a very satisfactory way in their Report for dealing with the inland waterways of this country. As I said earlier, we cannot amend the Report, but we can amend the Bill. When dealing with these authorities, it would seem to be far better to try to be consistent regarding the terminology which Parliament is going to use in relation to them. Furthermore, if the Report were to be accepted in the long run—and in so far as this sub-division of channels is concerned, I see no reason why it should not be—Amendments along the lines of those on the Order Paper today would probably have to be made at a later date. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it takes a considerable time to find every instance in the Bill where the word "stream" appears. Therefore, it would save a great many people much time and trouble if we amended it on the lines I suggest.
There is one further point. Most people who speak of a stream think of one running in natural channels down the contours of our land, yet the greater proportion of the water which we are seeking to purify runs through man-made channels, whether ditches, drains, or watercourses. Therefore, the word "channel" seems a better word to use than "stream" as a collective noun.
Hon. Members will see that I have tried everywhere to substitute "channel" for "stream," but there are two exceptions to this substitution in the Bill. They are both in the Second Schedule. The first is in paragraph 2, where the word "stream" is used in its proper sense as distinct from river, watercourse or inland waterway. The second is in paragraph 9 in which reference is made to the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. In that Act, the original definition of the word "stream" appears, but, as the Third Schedule of this Bill shows, by passing this Bill we shall be repealing the whole of that Act with the exception of Section 7. Therefore, it seems to me that no longer applies and that there is no reason to alter the word "stream" where it appears in the Schedule.
4.30 p.m.
The only other point I ought to mention is the Amendment I have put down to Clause 10—in page 11, line 8, at the end, insert:
'River Pollution' which is denned in section thirty-six of the River Boards Act,


1948, as including the pollution of streams shall be so amended as to include the pollution of channels as defined in this section.
That adds a definition to Clause 10 of the Bill and its effect would be to amend the definition of river pollution which is given in Section 36 of the River Boards Act, 1948. That Section defines pollution as including a portion of any stream. This Bill, especially by Clause 2, carries the definition of pollution a great deal further, and even supposing my suggested alteration of the word "stream" to the word "channel" were not accepted, I submit that the River Boards Act, 1948, would still require some amendment in so far as the definition of river pollution is concerned, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind, whatever he has to say about the main tenor of my Amendments.
I hope hon. Members will not think that I have been endeavouring to make an ocean out of a mere drop of the Parliamentary Pool of London, but that they will agree that the word "stream" is unfortunate to use as a collective noun because it means so many different things to so many different people. I hope the House will accept the opinion of real experts. Those experts of the Land Drainage Sub-Committee have endeavoured to advise the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and many of their recommendations will have direct effect on the responsibilities of those administering this Bill when it becomes an Act. I therefore hope that the fact that they have decided now to amend their definitions as considerably as they have will lead us to adopt at least the terminology they are using. The burden of this Bill will be carried mainly on the shoulders of the river boards, and it is in their interests as much as in the interests of anyone that I move the Amendment, because I believe it will help them and ourselves to understand what we are talking about a little more fully.

Mr. Benson: If the Amendment were accepted, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member, would it apply to "the usual channels"?

Mr. Crouch: I beg to second the Amendment.
In view of the most lucid speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I do not propose to take more than a few

moments. I think he should be congratulated on the care he has taken and the foresight he has displayed in looking forward to some future legislation in which the word "channel" will most probably be used.
It is one of the duties of this House, which has many, to remove difficulties that may arise at any time in the future. I can see a future in which the question of the alternative uses of the word "stream" would be raised by many people, and I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment in the manner in which it has been put forward. I am a countryman, and we countrymen much prefer to use simple expressions, understandable to us all, than those which have so many different explanations and apply to so many things.

Mr. Dalton: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on the contribution he has made, which seemed to me to have great force logically. He said that it was inconvenient to define a stream in terms of a number of nouns of which one was a "stream." I agree with that, but I think we should take a more conservative view of this matter, and the fact is that this term "stream" has been used in the 1876 Act in particular and has been the subject of a great number of legal decisions. His Majesty's judges have ruled upon it, and it has been accepted—illogical although the hon. and gallant Member has shown it to be—in a number of branches of administration.
Although it is quite true that the Heneage Report on land drainage suggests that the term "channel" might not be the sole term used—among other terms they speak of water courses, drains, ditches, and so on—they suggest that "channel" might be one of a number of terms in which some contexts it might be more convenient to use, I think that here it might disturb the past basis of the law and create a little doubt and confusion if we were to substitute the word "channel" for the word "stream," in spite of the argument made by the hon. and gallant Member.
In reply to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), who said that he is a countryman, I should have thought that country people were just as accustomed to speaking of streams as of channels, if not more so. I do not think that on that basis we could justify a change. I much


appreciate the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, but I ask the House not to accept the Amendment, because I think it would throw doubt on a number of established legal practices. I repeat that the term "stream" has appeared in many Statutes and been the subject of frequent judicial decisions, and it would be a pity to alter it now.

Major Legge-Bourke: I cannot really say that the Minister's reply was entirely unexpected. I only wish I could. At the same time I want first to clear his mind on one point. It is that conservative thought normally is to conserve what is worth conserving and to proceed to more modern methods where applicable. I should have thought it a very dangerous precedent to suggest that just because certain judicial rulings have been given based on the old definition, it has to stand forever. I do not think that can be substantiated as common practice throughout our history, and I hope he will not try to institute it either now or in the future.
In the light of what the Minister has said I think there is little more I can add to the argument. If I have not succeeded in persuading him, I hope that at a later date I shall have the pleasure of putting the case to him again.

Mr. Keenan: I have been rather impressed by the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). Could not the word "channel" be added to the word "stream"?

Mr. Dalton: That would exactly double the confusion. To accept the Amendment would cause some confusion but to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend would double the confusion.

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "poisonous, noxious," and to insert "offensive, injurious."
I am in a similar position to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), as I have put down a number of consequential Amendments which I trust may all be discussed together.
In the definition of "polluting matter" in this Bill, the phrase is used, "poisonous, noxious or polluting matter," It is suggested that we should call it "offensive, injurious or polluting matter." There are two arguments in favour of this alteration. The first is that this Bill is founded on the Hobday Report, which went into the matter and presented recommendations to the Minister. In paragraph 28 they recommended that the words used should be, "offensive and injurious."
The second point I wish to put to the House is that this Bill will have to be administered by the river boards and it is the considered view of the river boards, and catchment boards where river boards have yet to be set up, that they would rather use the words "offensive, injurious" than the words "poisonous, noxious." It is their submission that the words "poisonous, noxious" will not apply to all matters with which they wish to deal.
I will give one or two instances. There is the case of effluent from a beet sugar factory which leaves the factory in a state which no one can descrbe as noxious. Yet, after a short passage down the stream or channel, the effluent kills all forms of fish in the river. Therefore, it can truly be described as injurious, whereas it cannot be described as either poisonous or noxious. There is also the question of temperature. It is said by the river boards who are to administer this Bill that effluent of a high temperature would not be poisonous or noxious but would be injurious. Although there is in Clause 5 a proviso under which they can make regulations dealing with temperature, it is the view of the river boards that the proviso will be inoperative unless the change which I am seeking is made. Finally, they say that tar and other road-cleansing materials are better defined as injurious rather than noxious.
The second part of my argument is that if we are to have a phrase describing polluting matter, it should be the same throughout the whole country. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, we are excluding the Thames Conservancy and the Lee Conservancy from the provisions of the Measure. Those catchment areas will in future be governed by the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, and the Lee Conservancy Act, 1868. In both those Acts the words used are "offensive, injurious"


and the words "poisonous, noxious" are not used. That, I submit, is the strongest argument of all in favour of this Amendment. It is most important that what is regarded as polluting in the area of the Lee or the Thames should be equally polluting in the area of the Ouse or the Trent or of any other river which Members may know.
This matter was considered in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman listened to the arguments and said that he was attracted to the "injurious" though for some odd reason he found "offensive" both weak and flabby. I should have thought that the word "offensive" was very important. I know of many effluents that have a very offensive smell, and I should like to see them covered by this Bill. I hope that the House will look with sympathy on the Amendment.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Minister will remember that in Committee upstairs I said that I was not happy about the words which then stood in the Bill. I felt that a simple term, say, "pollution" or "unwholesomeness"—which is the word used in the short title of the Bill—and then a definition in the definition Clause might be a better method of approaching the problem. That suggestion may not have been the real solution. It was not accepted. Therefore, I come to the choice of certain terms. I feel that the words "offensive, injurious" constitute a somewhat wider net to prevent pollution than do the words "poisonous, noxious" which are at present in the Bill. For that reason I support, without repeating his arguments, the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has put forward, and I do so particularly on the grounds that it will bring the Bill into line with other legislation.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Although I have put down an Amendment, which appears on the Order Paper immediately after this one, which does not seek to include "offensive" but to insert, after "noxious" the word "injurious," in general, I should like to support the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) if it is felt that "offensive" is also needed. My own

feeling is that "injurious" is the more important word. I would remind my right hon. Friend that in Committee he said that if any change was desirable the word "injurious" was probably the best of the epithets not already in the Bill. But he was a little doubtful and said that he would consider the matter. I hope that he might be able to give us the result of that consideration when he replies to the debate on these two Amendments.
It has already been said by the mover and seconder of the Amendment that "noxious" does not really cover certain things that we think ought to be covered. For instance, if heated water is put into a river, it is not poisonous, it is not noxious, it is not really polluting, but in sufficient quantities it can cause a good deal of harm. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has already mentioned the effluent from sugar beet factories. It seems to me that "injurious" will cover that kind of effluent. Or an effluent might be discharged into a river which, while it does not kill fish, kills the food on which fish eat. Consequently, it can be held to be injurious. I think that "injurious" would cover that kind of example very well; I cannot see that the other words would. Some further strengthening of the provisions of the Bill on this matter should be decided upon at this stage.

Mr. Fort: I ask the Minister to reject the specious arguments, as they seem to me, that have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I ask him to reject them for just one reason, namely, that as a result of past judicial decisions those who are concerned with water matters have a clear idea of what the words "poisonous" and "noxious" mean, and can by this time, as a result of those decisions, give a scientific or near scientific definition, whereas everything would be left in the air if the new words "offensive, injurious," proposed by my hon. Friend, were introduced.
Not only would this Amendment mean the removal of the definition that now exists, but it seems to me that the words "offensive, injurious" can cause possible confusion to those who are not lawyers or sewerage engineers. One can well imagine an effluent which is perhaps very offensive or injurious to human beings but not to fish, and vice versa.


We should again have the whole business of a series of court cases in order to find out where we stand and to secure definitions of the new terms that we are now asked to adopt.

Mr. Turton: If that is so why has there not been a series of cases in the Lee and Thames areas? In the case of the Lee area the definition which I propose in my Amendment has applied since 1868.

Mr. Fort: I might again stress to my hon. Friend that the Act governing the Lee area preceded the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, in which it was found necessary to depart from the definition used in the Lee Conservancy Act, 1868, and to introduce the expression which the Government have perpetuated in the Bill now before us, namely, "poisonous, noxious or polluting." The fact that the definition had to be changed in so short a time is a proof of the unsatisfactory nature of the expression which was used in the Lee Conservancy Act, 1868. Furthermore, there is a greater weight of reasons for "poisonous, noxious" than for the definition which my hon. Friend would prefer to have. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do with these proposed alterations in wording what he did with those on the previous Amendment, and that is to uphold what is an established and well-recognised practice which we can all understand.

Mr. John Morrison: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), in what they have said rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I do not want to reiterate all the arguments, but I hope the Minister will consider tar in this matter of pollution, for to me it seems to be injurious although it may not be noxious.

Mr. Odey: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be led to reject this Amendment on the grounds that this matter should be looked at from the point of view of the fish. It may well be that an effluent that appears to be offensive to human beings might be positively attractive to fish. That is the whole point of the objection to the words "offensive," as it is so much more a looser phrase than the word "poisonous."

What is poisonous can be quite clearly defined. It is something that poisons and ultimately deprives a person or animal of life.
The word "offensive" is extremely loose. It is possible to have an effluent which is mildly reminiscent of eau de Cologne. Such would not be offensive at all to human beings. Indeed, it might be mildly attractive, but it might also be poisonous to something like fish. This Bill involves certain penalties, and it is desirable that it should be as explicit as possible. Therefore, I would submit that the word "poisonous" has many attractions which the word "offensive" lacks.

Mr. Dalton: As I promised in Committee, I have done my best to explore the relative merits of all the epithets. I have taken much legal advice, and I have been advised that prolonged legal consideration has been given to the respective niceties of these terms. It is only right that I should tell the House that the result of the prolonged legal consideration has been to advise me in line with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey), namely, that we should leave these three words alone, which, between them, have never failed us. They appear, as has been said, in the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. There have been numerous cases brought into court, and in no instance I am advised has affective action been prevented, because this combination of words was too narrow or too weak.
As I said in Committee upstairs, I was attracted by the word "injurious," for I thought that perhaps it might add something. I am advised that it does not. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to fish being put to death by an effluent. Undoubtedly the word "poisonous," covers that; I do not think there is any doubt that the fish are poisoned. The word "noxious" is a very powerful and far-reaching epithet. It means anything which is damaged or harmed—and we discussed upstairs, as we will again today, the question of high temperature water. It was not the discharged water's impurity, which affected the lives of the fish, but the high temperature of the water. There, again, I am advised that "noxious" completely covers that.
Anxious as I have been to explore the whole matter fairly, this is one case where one should pay some attention to accumulated legal wisdom. I am told that these words cannot be improved upon by any in the Amendment, and that to add any others would create uncertainty in the future in the determination of the law. That being so, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Turton: In view of the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "matter," to insert:
other than discharges of effluent from sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority by means of storm water overflow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): This Amendment should be taken with one to page 2, line 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), with one to page 2, line 25, in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), one to page 9, line 18, in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), and the one to page 9, line 20, in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price).

Dr. Stross: Many of us are interested in these Amendments, because we feel that our own local authorities will be penalised if careful consideration is not given at this stage to the problems they must face. For good or for ill—I think for ill—many of our towns have not been able to afford separate systems for both rain water and crude sewage, and a combined sewerage system is used. That means that all the crude sewage is carried from the drainage area together with the storm water when storms arrive. The volumes vary. Sometimes the volume of rain water will be 200 times as great as the crude sewage. At other times it is all crude sewage which is lying in the sewer and no rain water is available.
In the past the Ministry has always allowed, and still does, storm overflow to pass into a river, and this has meant that the size of the sewers, which are placed immediately downstream of the overflows, can be and are reduced to a

small diameter. If the Bill forbids us to empty into any stream water which is slightly polluted, then local authorities like my own and many others in the country would at once have to seal up hundreds of storm overflows. Having sealed them up they must do one of two other things. They must enormously enlarge the lengths of the sewer down the stream of the overflows, or, alternatively, construct additional large diameter storm sewers down the stream of the overflows to receive the discharge therefrom. We do not know how this would be possible in the circumstances of today.
In Stoke-on-Trent, only a fortnight ago, we opened another section of what we think is one of the most modern sewerage works in Europe. It is not large enough for the whole of our area. It covers just over 200,000 people on the southern side of the city as well as people in the neighbouring area. The northern part still uses a more old-fashioned type of works. There is not the labour or material available nor would we get the permission to obtain the capital investment necessary to finish the whole of this scheme. We do not think it is certain that we would finish it in the seven years during which no action may be taken against us without the permission of the Minister. Local authorities are very anxious to remain under the control of my right hon. Friend on these matters rather than fall under the tender mercies of another body, which is less likely to have the experience that he has of their difficulties, especially financial ones, when faced with these problems.
5.0 p.m.
There is a further difficulty over which we have very little control—and this also applies to other areas—and that is the serious question of mining subsidence. In a district like mine, where we live about 20 or 30 feet lower than people did 200 years ago owing to the subsidence of the whole of the area, we are faced with the fact that the storm overflow weirs which are set to work when the dilution of sewage is six times the original volume, cannot be guaranteed to do the work properly. In fact, because of subsidence, they often work before there is the permitted dilution of six times the sewage volume. In some cases, they are working all the time. Subsidence is something which is happening all the


time, and it upsets all the calculations of sanitary engineers and others.
It is our feeling—and I am putting the view of an experienced sanitary engineer in Stoke-on-Trent—that, whatever reasonable standard may be set by a river board to allow of modified pollution, the onset of any continuing subsidence will soon bring about pollution beyond that standard. Therefore, we cannot feel safe with a Clause worded as this is, either now or in the future.
My local authority, and probably every other in the country, is more than anxious to do everything to see that there is an improvement in the state of the streams. The Trent rises very near to where I live. It has been grossly polluted. We have taken energetic action recently. The two sections of sewerage works which I mentioned earlier cost £600,000. We are able to handle not only offensive but poisonous and noxious material. We do continuous research. Gas liquor is handled in huge quantities and rendered harmless, and we are able to do a great deal and to anticipate not only the desires of the river board but much that is in this Bill. That is roughly the position which I wish to put before the House.

Mr. Kinley: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hargreaves: Might I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether this series of Amendments which you suggested should be discussed at the same time all relate only to storm water overflows, or whether the debate is to range more widely and to incorporate the two Amendments in page 2, line 25, which stand in my name? In other words, are we limited to a discussion of storm water overflows?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gave a list of the Amendments which I thought might be discussed with this Amendment, and I said that if Divisions were wanted on them they could take place. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Turton: I gather that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) was referring to the Amendment in his name in page 2, line 25, which deals with other matters than storm water overflow. Surely that will not be discussed now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I take it that in general the discussion is on storm water, and that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) which will be discussed now is the one at the bottom of page 1001 of the Order Paper and not the one a little earlier which refers to the
best practicable and reasonably available means.
At present, this discussion is one on storm water and the groups of Amendments which cover storm water as such.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I have not made the position clear. There are two Amendments in line 25, in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), and it is the second one which should be discussed with this group of Amendments.

Mr. Hargreaves: I want to discuss the question of storm water rather more widely. I suggest that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) would give much too great a power to local authorities to pollute streams in their areas. The Amendment in my name attempts to meet the situation in a way which is more helpful than the broader suggestion made by my hon. Friend. Local authorities, like every other user of river water, must do their utmost to secure the wholesomeness of the rivers. We have to take public opinion with us in lifting up standards.
If local authorities are to take to themselves powers which industrial users are not able to obtain, then public opinion is likely to be aroused against them. Therefore, I suggest that the more limited effect of the Amendment in my name is one which might attract the support of public opinion to a greater degree. Every local authority concerned with sewage disposal is in exactly the same position. Each is confronted with the commission of an offence immediately the Bill becomes an Act, and with the continuing commission of that offence, with punishment directed against the officers of the corporate body.
It is natural that they are concerned to find a means whereby they can meet not only the need for lifting up the standard of the rivers, but also of doing the job of the local authority. If we are creating an immediate offence when this Bill becomes an Act, we should make


certain that all these people have been in consultation with Government Departments.
The fact is that the local authority for which I am speaking has been in negotiation with the Department concerned on the subject of the sewage works, the outfalls to the river, the effluent quantities, and so on. They feel that, having obtained the assent of the Government Department for the works that are in existence on the River Eden in Carlisle, and having obtained advice in the construction of those works, they have a right to expect that they shall be safeguarded from the prosecution which would follow from the acceptance of the terms of the Bill as it stands.
Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable that we should give to the local authorities situated in this way the right to say that, where works have been constructed in consultation and after negotiations with Government Departments, who have been consulted as to the engineering works and who have passed the plans, and where standards and conditions of sewage treatment and disposal have been accepted, that safeguard should be written into the Bill.
In those circumstances, I say that it is not unreasonable—indeed, public opinion in the local authorities would expect it—to ask that a provision should be made for safeguards to be written into the Bill to enable local authorities not to transgress or continue to transgress against the general desire of others to raise their standards as far as rivers are concerned. Rather should we enable them, over a period of time, to raise those standards, recognising, too, that their own ratepayers would be called upon to meet unwarranted burdens if they were to try to discontinue, completely and immediately, the pollution that follows from sewage works.
Recognising these factors, I think the Minister would be giving some help to local authorities and some education to public opinion along the lines which hon. Members on both sides of the House desire, if he were to accept the general terms of the Amendment which I hope to move later. It is in more precise terms, and is less vague and wide than the one now before the House.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I hope the Minister will adopt the Amendment which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). Like him, and also the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I am concerned with the local authority difficulties, because the centuries-old city which I have the honour to represent has this same trouble. I have no need to go over the arguments, which have already been covered.
My appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should not let the Bill go forward in a form which means that the local authority will be defenceless against the commission of an offence which they cannot, in practice, help committing. It may be said that that brings the law into contempt more than anything else. It may be said that they will, in fact, be protected when this Bill becomes law because of the absence of the consent of the Minister to a prosecution, but I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to regard that as quite insufficient. I do not mean that he would consent to the local authority being prosecuted, but the truth is that the consequences of committing a punishable offence at law are by no means limited to subjecting oneself to the possibility of prosecution and penalty.
5.15 p.m.
Is it to be thought that a local authority can lawfully incur expenditure, for instance, for the commission of a punishable offence at law? Supposing a local authority, under present circumstances of restrictions on capital expenditure and so on, is virtually compelled to commit an offence under Section 2 (1) of the Bill, how can they lawfully incur expenditure for the purpose of causing "any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter…to enter a stream," because, in fact, they would not be able to avoid doing it until the combined sewerage system was altered. If they do incur expenditure for committing these offences against the law, shall we not be up against further trouble about surcharging individuals and the like?
I only instance these matters because my purpose is to invite the Minister to consider how the mere absence of his consent can protect save against prosecution. It would be quite insufficient to


protect from the consequences of committing an offence a local authority which, for some years, may not be able to do anything about it. In the instance of my own constituency, to eliminate our storm water overflows, I am advised, would involve very expensive works indeed, great demands on labour and materials, and expenditure which would obviously require Government sanction. In present circumstances, there does not seem to be any practicable likelihood that the Government would be able to consent to anything of that kind even within seven years.
In these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Carlisle has referred, and I ask him to prefer it to that suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, because it contains in its vitals that spur which we ought to have to a laggard local authority or one which may be continuing to use outmoded methods. I ask the Minister to prefer it and the House to accept it.

Mr. Mitchison: This is an enlarged parish pump discussion, and I hope I shall not drip for long. I should like to complete the circuit, if I may, by saying how I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). It seems to me that the Amendment before the House goes much too far and places local authorities in too privileged and too peculiar a position.
As regards the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle, I agree entirely and wholeheartedly with what has just been said by the hon. and learned Member for York on the extreme unwisdom, and, indeed, the extreme unfairness, of putting local authorities in the position of practically having to commit an offence, or, at any rate, of being found committing it, and then leaving them to the protection of a Ministerial refusal to authorise a prosecution. I do not believe that that is the right way to do things, and I agree with what was said—and I think one can add other instances—about the point that it is not merely a question of prosecution and punishment, but also a question of the civil and other consequences of being placed in an unlawful position and doing an unlawful thing.

Mr. Nugent: Those in favour of the Amendment have so far been rather more fortunate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in catching your eye than have been those who are against it. I think it would be right to say that there is a considerable body of opinion which feels that this particular volume of effluent should not be let loose in the way that the promoters of the Amendment wish. We all sympathise with the difficulty of local authorities in dealing with storm water overflows—everybody knows that it is a special problem. The Bill, however, is directed to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, and it would be most undesirable to put into the Bill an exception of this kind. There are many similar instances affecting industry for which exclusion could be asked, and to my mind it would be quite wrong to write into the Bill an exception of this sort which would take the matter outside the power of a river board to deal with it.
The position of the storm water overflow is usually dealt with in one of three ways. Either the local authority have set up a sewerage system which deals with the soil and the storm water overflow separately, in which case there is no problem, or there is a combined system with storage tanks, which will take the increased volume of flow which comes at time of storm and so allows the sewerage system to release a controlled effluent into the stream. In the third case, with which we are in trouble, there are no such storage tanks.
I fully recognise that a large number of local authorities do not have storage tanks and are in this difficulty. When they are dealing with river boards, they usually plead that when the flow exceeds six times the dry water flow they ought to be allowed to discharge it straight into the river. Their plea is normally based on the ground that by that time the effluent of sewage is so diluted by the flow in the stream that it will do no harm; but it is still undiluted sewage, and it ought not to go into the stream if that can possibly be avoided.
I recognise that it is impossible for all local authorities to put their sewerage works immediately into a condition which will prevent such things happening. That will be the position for many years, although we may hope that eventually it will be possible for local authorities to do this. In the meantime, surely the right way


to deal with the problem is to leave it to the river boards when they come to set up their standards, having surveyed their rivers and having discovered what is the position of the various local sewerage works that discharge into their rivers. They will then take all that into account when setting their standards, which, of course, have to go to a local inquiry; they have to be confirmed by the Minister. There is every opportunity, therefore, for ensuring that the local circumstances are taken into account.
I have in mind the position of which the mover of the Amendment was speaking. Quite obviously, an area in which there is subsidence has special problems, but equally the river board would take those problems into account. Local authority representation comprises two-thirds of a river board, who will be very well aware, therefore, of the problems of local authorities and their sewerage works.
In those circumstances, I feel that we could safely leave this matter of how to deal with their local sewage effluent to be decided by the river boards themselves when they are setting up their standards. In that way, the river boards would adjust their standards to meet the particular conditions with which they have to deal, and which obviously would vary from one river to another and from one local authority to another. If we do as the Amendment asks, we shall make it quite impossible for any river board ever to improve the situation. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Grey: I support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). Like the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster), I represent a centuries-old city—Durham—and in speaking for that city I should like it to be taken that I speak also for other old cities. If the Bill is passed in its present form, I understand that it will be an offence to discharge sewage into a river, even if all possible steps are taken to prevent river pollution; and that during a period of seven years from the passing of the Act, proceedings may be taken by the river boards, with the consent of the Minister, but that after that period pro-

ceedings may be taken without the Minister's consent.
The City of Durham has a combined foul sewage and rainwater system. To alter this in order to ensure a separate system for storm water would involve enormous cost to the ratepayers. The city council would be content if the Bill were to provide that the consent of the Minister should be necessary in all cases before proceedings could be taken against local authorities who were discharging effluent into rivers. They feel that the Minister would be able to take all the factors into consideration and to judge all the circumstances.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is referring to an Amendment other than that which has been moved. To which one does he refer?

Mr. Grey: I am dealing with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, in page 2, line 11, after "matter," to insert:
other than discharges of effluent from sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority by means of storm water overflow.
I assure my right hon. Friend that no authority is more anxious to preserve its river than is the Durham City Council. If the Amendment is accepted, and if river pollution takes place as a result of the overflow water, we shall be assured that if the Minister takes all the factors into consideration, there will be no danger of a local authority being hardly dealt with.

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: I support the Amendment. I followed with great interest the convincing arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent)—up to a point: that the perfect is what we always aim for but that under present conditions we must recognise the extreme difficulties in which local authorities are placed, particularly as regards capital costs and the impracticability under present circumstances of carrying out the provisions of the Bill in its present form.
In support of the arguments that have been made in favour of the Amendment. I have been supplied with some very convincing information from the City of Bedford, who state that if they were to carry out the provisions of the Bill and to avoid the pollution of their river, the present pumping capacity of the city would have


to be increased 18-fold, that the rising main from the pumping station to the disposal works would have to be increased accordingly, and that the tank capacity, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred, would have to be increased at the disposal works 15-fold. At the present time, this could not be undertaken at a cost of less than £1 million.
The only other method that could be applied—it is done by only a very few towns or local authorities which have an entirely separate system for flood water and sewage—would be to have separate sewers throughout the great cities, so that the surface water would be entirely separate from the foul water. In the conditions which we face today, such a proposal would be unthinkable. On these reasonable and logical grounds, I hope that the Minister, in the interests of local authorities, will agree to this very reasonable Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I think I can give a reply which I hope will satisfy most hon. Members. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) goes a little far and I am going to ask him not to press the Amendment. The consequence of his Amendment would be to put local authorites in this respect above the law, which I am sure he does not want to do; and it would be unreasonable.
On the other hand, we appreciate that local authorities have their problems in this matter. It is true, of course, that in the present state of financial affairs large schemes for the improvement of sewage plant and the like cannot be proceeded with for the moment. I am prepared to accept in principle the Amendment in page 2, line 25, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) proposes to move later dealing with storm water overflow. The wording does not quite fit and what I propose is that if he will not move that Amendment, I will have the wording looked into and undertake to have an Amendment moved in another place to give effect to what he wants in that Amendment.
To clear the whole ground, when the hon. Member for Carlisle comes to his other Amendment relating to the best practical and reasonable means—in page 2, line 25, at the end to insert:

(3) Where a standard has not been prescribed as respects a stream or part of a stream by byelaws made under section five of this Act, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence in respect of that stream or that part thereof under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to prove that the best practicable and reasonably available means have been used to render the matter entering that stream or that part thereof harmless and inoffensive.—
I shall be prepared to accept it straight away. That really produces a further safeguard which would satisfy local authorities and all reasonable claims, including the case put by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) and others who have spoken.
I hope the Amendment now before the House may be withdrawn and hope the other Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle dealing with storm water will not be moved on the understanding that I accept it in principle and on the understanding that I give prior notice that when he comes to his other Amendment relating to the best practicable and reasonable means. I will accept it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think we heard with a little uneasiness the undertaking just given by the Minister. The difficulty in all this is vagueness, and even the Amendment which is about to be moved by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) falls under that accusation, because hon. Members will see that it says the Bill when it becomes an Act,
…shall not penalise the discharge into the stream of the effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority…if…the normal flow of sewage in the sewer is diluted by rainwater so as to…reduce any undue pollution.
The Minister has already indicated that he will not be satisfied with those words, and we shall look with considerable interest to the words as they are suggested in another place. Indeed, I think the Minister will realise that he may be subject to a good deal of debate when those words appear on the Order Paper in another place, because frankly, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), it means, at the end of the day, that the proposal is to run all the sewage into the river, whereas the purpose of the Bill is to prevent sewage being run into the river.
The whole purpose of this long process is to clean up the river and to lay


down procedure by which over a long period—and we all agree it will be a long period—and with the utmost safeguards, rivers will be cleaned up. If words to the effect of the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Carlisle are put in, there is danger that they will remove from the purview of the river board the desirability of impressing upon local authorities that, as far as possible, they should deal with the storm water properly. I put it no higher than that.
The river board is not a new arbitrary body which is being set up. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is based as to two-thirds on local authorities themselves. If a bylaw is brought forward it has to be approved. The board has to have an inquiry and the whole weight of public opinion is directed on the matter. If all these things are complied with, it does not seem unreasonable that storm water should come into the purview of the river board, and that is all the Bill intends.
I have the greatest sympathy with the City of Durham, which I know and like very much indeed. As I am sure the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) will agree, the beauty of the City of Durham is somewhat injured by the fact that the river running through it and past the walls of the ancient castle is not as clear as we should all like it to be. Boat races and other things are held on it but one is careful, so to speak, not to dig the oars too deeply in the water. Durham is one of the most beautiful and ancient cities in the whole island, and its situation above that noble river is one which any city in the world would be glad to possess. Therefore, we wish to see this river, amongst others, made as clean as is reasonably possible.
It is more than a little of a coincidence that it is the cities, York, Carlisle, Durham and so on, that have contended they should not be asked to grapple with this problem for fear of being unreasonably treated, and I think the countryside are a little uneasy lest the storm water may be used as an excuse for leaving the river in a less satisfactory state than it would be otherwise. Certainly, in the County of Durham, of all counties, it is very desirable that the rivers should be cleaned up as far as possible.
The Minister said he will first of all ask that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) be withdrawn and the Amendment relating to storm water overflow in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle be not moved. Naturally, we shall not object to that. Secondly, the Minister says he thinks there is something in the contention that a local authority should not be unduly prejudiced by being asked to deal with storm water too rapidly. Again I think we should all agree. But I beg him to have in mind always the purpose of the Bill, which is the cleaning up of rivers by means of an authority which has that special purpose and duty laid upon it by this House; and we should not withdraw altogether from that authority even this question of storm water, difficult as it is.
As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, said, the question whether a sewer should contain rain water as well as sewage is very old. Historically speaking, in the ancient cities such as Rome and elsewhere, the drains were originally made to carry away water and not sewage, and there used to be very heavy penalties against putting sewage in drains at all. It was supposed to be dealt with by simpler and more smelly methods to which all my friends the compost makers attach great importance. But, after all, we are here weakening the purpose for which we set out. Do not let us weaken it unduly.

Dr. Stross: Having heard what has been said in the debate on this point and the Minister's assurance, I am satisfied that we shall secure the type of protection I have in mind. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out "solid."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we might also consider with this Amendment the two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). These are in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "matter." to the end of line 15; and in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence punishable under this section by reason only of having done or caused to be done any of the following acts:
(a) constructing, improving or maintaining in or across or in or on the bank or bed


of any stream, any building, bridge, weir, dam, sluice, fish-pass, dock, pier, harbour, drain or sewer or other permanent works which he has a right to construct, improve or maintain;

Mr. Dalton: The Amendment I am moving proceeds from a discussion that we had in Committee. The proposal is to leave out the word "solid" in front of "matter." This brings this Clause into line with other Clauses already amended in Committee by omitting this word. To give the background to any hon. Members who may be interested and who were not on the standing Committee, we had a number of Amendments put down in Committee dealing with matter in suspension, gaseous matter, colloidal matter and so forth. Having considered all these, it seemed better, if the Committee were agreed on this, to leave out all these epithets, and in pursuance of that and in order to purify the process, I propose to leave out the word "solid."

Mr. Powell: I understand, Sir Charles, that we are considering this Amendment in conjunction with the other Amendment to the same line and the Minister's Amendment in page 2, line 15.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I thought we were considering the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in page 2, line 13, and his Amendment in page 2, line 15, which is linked with the first one.

Mr. Powell: If I might refer to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, in page 2, line 13, I hope that the Minister will also give consideration to omitting the words which my hon. Friend proposes to leave out. I can see at least two objections to those words remaining in the Clause. The first difficulty relates to the word "tend." It makes it an offence to permit solid matter to enter a stream
so as to tend…to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream.
I should think that wording would impose a difficult task upon a court. It is one thing to decide whether the flow of a stream is or is not impeded by a particular act, but to decide whether an act tends to impede the flow imports an additional consideration which I feel can only cause difficulty.
The second objection which I have to the words proposed to be left out relates to the words

…in combination with similar acts.
which may be the acts of another person. I can conceive of a perfectly innocent entry of matter—if I may use that expression—into a stream which, in combination with another act, would have an undesirable effect but which ought not to be treated as an offence on the part of the first person mentioned. For example, it might well be that a perfectly innocuous substance discharged into a stream into which another effluent was being discharged would bring about a chemical reaction producing a noxious result.
It seems to me undesirable that the discharge of matter which has no noxious or injurious or objectionable result in itself and its direct consequences should be penalised because of some effect which it has in combination with another person's action. Therefore, I hope the Minister will reconsider re-wording this paragraph (b) so as to remove the difficulties in the present wording.

Mr. Nugent: Am I right in thinking, Sir Charles, that you wish the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), in page 2, line 15, to be taken at this point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. It is consequential on the Minister's Amendment to leave out the word "solid."

Mr. Nugent: I should like to say a few words on that Amendment. In my hon. Friend's absence from the House to attend a Committee, I feel that this Amendment should not go by default. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that this Amendment was moved in Committee and he was sufficiently impressed by it then to say that on the Report stage he would introduce an Amendment something like this or something else which would have the effect of meeting this Amendment. In the opinion of my hon. Friend, what the Minister has now done by no means meets the point that my hon. Friend raised.
5.45 p.m.
I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate to me whether his Amendment should be read with his Amendment later on in Clause 5, line 32. Am I right in thinking that the two should be read together?

Mr. Dalton: Yes.

Mr. Nugent: The provision which the Minister has now made to meet my hon. Friend's point fails to do so, but the later Amendment, which I cannot discuss now but which will be discussed later, goes very wide indeed, and the general effect of the two Amendments is by no means as good as my hon. Friend's Amendment, the wording of which appears in the West Riding of Yorkshire local Act.
I should be glad if, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will develop a little more fully, or as fully as he can, the reasons for the Amendment which he has put down so that we may be satisfied that his Amendment is adequate to meet the point here. I feel that I can hardly do justice to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend, but at least I have got the matter before the House and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would address himself to it.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to refer to the discussion which we had in Committee when I asked the Minister if he would look into the position in so far as this Clause might affect internal drainage boards. Occasions arise now and again when, for reasons of floods, they have to put a sluice into a channel and, as I see it, the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) would cover the point which I have in mind. The Minister said he would look into it, and I should be grateful to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Dalton: When I first spoke I moved the Amendment in page 2, line 13, to leave out "solid," and I restricted my observations to that, but perhaps I may now say a few words in support of the Amendment in my name in page 2, line 15, at the end, insert:
in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.
I think the convenient plan would be for me to say something about that Amendment and then to say something about the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
The purpose of my Amendment in page 2, line 15, is to try to make the language in subsection (1, b) sufficiently precise to make it unnecessary to have a long list of saving Clauses which would be complicated. The draftsmen have therefore sought in this Amendment to

obviate the need for that, and I hope that will be judged to be sufficient.
If the Amendment were not made, a number of acts would be prevented, such as the repair of bridges and so on, since it might be held that they would impede the proper flow of the river. The Amendment makes it clear that they are not prohibited unless they tend to aggravate pollution, which of course is a different test from the test with which we are concerned. In other words, we have no objection to some interference with the flow of the river if it is done for a good purpose, provided it does not aggravate pollution.
There is also another type of disposal of matter which I hope will be covered by this Amendment—the disposal of tin cans and junk and litter in streams, which may not of itself be polluting and may not be sufficiently substantial to impede the flow of the river, but which is offensive—and here I think the word "offensive" is appropriate, which goes back to an earlier discussion.
I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton had matters of this sort in mind when he spoke of the difficulty of taking effective action. It is here, too, in reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), that my Amendment to Clause 5 is intended to deal with a subject raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. I will not develop it at this stage, but the effect would be to give a river board power to make bylaws prohibiting the use of a stream for disposing of litter or any other matter of an objectionable kind, even if it is not polluting.
I turn now to the two Amendments of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and first of all to his Amendment in line 13, which follows similar lines to an Amendment which he proposed in Committee. He made reference to certain proposals in the Hobday Committee's Report, but the Act of 1876 said,
so as either singly or in combination with other similar acts of the same or any other person to interfere with its due flow.
The Hobday Report said that it required the onus of proof placed on the person concerned, to secure proof that he actually interfered. Depositing the substance in streams can come within the ambit of the


Bill only if it is likely to lead indirectly to pollution—and it may do that if it slows down the flow of the river or tends to make it stagnant; and for this reason I have put down my Amendment. It narrows rather than enlarges the scope of paragraph (b), and the purpose of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, so far as it is not covered by this Amendment, will I hope be met by the Amendment which I am putting down to Clause 5 to enable bylaws to be made dealing with matter which is not in itself polluting. I hope that that further extension will be acceptable to the House, when we reach that Amendment.
I turn now to the other Amendment of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—in line 15. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Guildford say that he did not think I had met the point which his hon. Friend had in mind. I hoped that I had done so, and certainly I was seeking to do so in drafting these Amendments. If the operations which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has in mind and which he wishes to prevent do not tend to aggravate pollution, then of course they are not prohibited by the paragraph; but if they do so, then of course they can be prohibited, and I think my Amendment will effectively do that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is not here; naturally I should have liked to hear his response; but I have genuinely tried to meet the views he put forward and I had hoped that the Amendments, taken in conjunction with that in Clause 5, would collectively have done so.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is an example of the complexity of this legislation that we are discussing four Amendments together, with reference to a fifth which is not reached until five Clauses ahead. I think we must accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he genuinely intended to meet the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Our intentions are the same—that the flow of the river should not be impeded, but that persons should not be caught by doing perfectly innocent things which, however they may impede the flow of the river, may well be to the advantage of the river.
As an example one can think of the case where the river is boring away the bank and where one naturally deposits

things which certainly impede the flow of the river, because the river is doing its best to make a hole at that point, but which do not do so in such a way as to cause pollution. What my hon. Friend desired, I think, was that the legitimate operations of safeguarding the position of riparian owners should not be brought under the mischief of this Act.
I think the Minister's suggestion that we should omit the word "solid" is sound. It may well be that it will read correctly, together with the subsequent Amendment,
in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.
I agree that he has limited the Bill in this way. This has a narrowing effect and we may find that we have narrowed it a little more than we desired. It is, however, impossible to foresee all the ramifications of the possible changes in this matter. We must assume that the Minister, who says his intentions are the same as those of hon. Members, has, in conjunction with his advisers, obtained language which will properly secure that object.
As for the later Amendment, in Clause 5, which goes very wide indeed, we shall see when we come to it that a person is prohibited from putting anything into a stream whether it is injurious or polluting, or not. That is a very wide definition of things which one may not put into a river, and I think we must have a look at it when we reach that Clause. Meanwhile I think we should do best to accept the advice of the Minister as to that portion of the Clause which we are now considering.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 2, line 15, at end, insert:
in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences."—[Mr Dalton.]

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end to insert:
(2) Where or in so far as a standard has not been prescribed as respects a stream or part of a stream by byelaws made under section five of this Act, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence in respect of that stream or that part thereof under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to prove—

(a) that the discharge of matter into that stream or that part thereof is not a new discharge; and


(b) that he is unable consistently with the reasonable and lawful carrying on of any customary process in connection with his trade or manufacture or statutory duties to prevent such matter entering that stream or that part thereof; and
(c) that he is using the best practicable means within a reasonable cost to render the matter entering that stream or that part thereof harmless and inoffensive.

For the purposes of this subsection the expression "new discharge" shall have the same meaning as is given to it in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act.
This Amendment seeks to deal with the position where a river board has not set up standards and, after seven years or possibly an extended period, is then in a position to proceed without the permission of the Minister. To keep the matter in perspective, I should say straight away that the Amendment deals with an exceptional case. Clearly, this House expects that the river boards will set up standards and that they will be operating them by the end of seven years. We are, therefore, here dealing with the exceptional case.
An Amendment which follows this on the Order Paper opens the door for the offending effluent rather widely and this Amendment seeks to limit the defence suggested by that Amendment to those discharges which are occurring at the time when the Bill was placed on the Statute Book. The defence with which I am here concerned is the defence that the person discharging the effluent is using the best practical means within reasonable cost to render the effluent harmless, and that is, of course, a Clause which appears in quite a number of local Acts. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow that defence to effluents which are existing effluents but to deny it to new effluents. In this connection, of course, the House will recognise that a new effluent, as defined in the Bill, can be an existing effluent which has increased in volume or changed in nature.
6.0 p.m.
This Amendment is an attempt to meet the conflicting views of the fishery interests and the industrial interests. Fishery interests, of course, are concerned to see that the rivers are as clean as pos-

sible so that fish can live in them. Industrial interests, on the other hand, have to keep their factories going, and local authorities have to keep their sewerage works going, and therefore have to discharge their effluents. There are thus three points to consider. First, there is the criticism of the fishery interests of the Amendment; secondly, there is the criticism of the industrial and local authority interests; and thirdly, there is the possible comment that the Bill already provides sufficient powers in this respect under Clause 3. Let me address myself briefly to those three points.
Let us take, first, the fishery interests. The effect of allowing this Amendment would be that a river board, where a bad—or moderately bad—effluent was being discharged at the time that this Bill went on the Statute Book and if it had not set up a standard, would have to accept that effluent continuing to go into the river in its present state, provided that the discharger of it could plead that he had used the best practical means within reasonable cost. We have to recognise that where that defence can be successfully pleaded, it is almost impossible for the river board to prove the contrary.
So that from the point of view of the fishery interests and the amenity interests, this does keep open a door, and that is certainly damaging so far as their interests are concerned. However, I think it is reasonable to say to the people who make that plea that at any rate this Amendment would prevent the existing position from getting any worse. It would arise only where a river board had not set up standards. Therefore, it is not likely to occur often.
Turning to the second point, the views of industry and of local authorities, I think that we can believe that industry and the local authorities are anxious to see an improvement in the condition of the rivers. Indeed, they have a specific interest in that. We have heard from local authorities that one of their concerns is to see that they have fresh, clean water coming into factories which are engaged in food processing. We have also heard from local authorities of their concern to have clean rivers, particularly where they have water undertakings.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

British North America Act, 1951.

Orders of the Day — RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL

As amended, again considered.

Clause 2.—(PROHIBITION ON USE OF STREAM FOR DISPOSAL OF POLLUTING MATTER, REFUSE, ETC.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 15, at end, insert:
(2) Where or in so far as a standard has not been prescribed as respects a stream or part of a stream by byelaws made under section five of this Act, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence in respect of that stream or that part thereof under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to prove—

(a) that the discharge of matter into that stream or that part thereof is not a new discharge; and
(b) that he is unable consistently with the reasonable and lawful carrying on of any customary process in connection with his trade or manufacture or statutory duties to prevent such matter entering that stream or that part thereof; and
(c) that he is using the best practicable means within a reasonable cost to render the matter entering that stream or that part thereof harmless and inoffensive.

For the purposes of this subsection the expression "new discharge" shall have the same meaning as is given to it in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: After that pleasant interlude, we return to our muddy waters. I was addressing my remarks to the way in which this Amendment might affect industry, and I was saying that I believe that industry has a common interest with everyone else to see the general condition of our rivers improved. This Bill sets out to improve the condition of our rivers and to prevent pollution, and in those circumstances it is hardly reasonable to have a provision which will have the effect that new effluents could be discharged into rivers of already low quality, which would mean reducing the quality even lower. That is the whole point of this Amendment.
I and my hon. Friends feel that, whilst it is reasonable that this particular defence should be open in respect of existing effluents, it would be contrary to the whole philosophy of the Bill to allow that defence to be open in respect of new effluents. That would mean that this Bill, instead of enabling river boards at least to maintain the existing condition of rivers, and we hope progressively improve their condition, would allow people to discharge effluents into rivers, making them worse than they were before. That just does not seem reasonable, and in spite of the comments of the right hon. Gentleman on an earlier Amendment, I hope he will limit his acceptance of this defence to existing effluents only.
The third point is that Clause 3 may give river boards sufficient powers now. Clause 3 allows river boards to go to the civil court to seek an injunction when they apprehend that some offence is going to be committed; but that is an expensive, complicated and lengthy process, and it is by no means so expeditious, economical and convenient as resort to the police courts, which I hope the House will think that it is not reasonable to say would be sufficient in the circumstances.
This Amendment is not entirely acceptable to fishing interests. We realise that. Nor is it entirely acceptable to industrial or local interests. It is an attempt to get a fair compromise, and to leave in the hands of river boards who find themselves in the exceptional position of not having set up standards after seven years power so that they can still be effective bodies to maintain the purity of their rivers, and if possible to improve it.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) has said, this Amendment probably does not completely satisfy either the industrial interests or the fishing interests. At the same time, it strikes a fair balance between the rights of what I might term existing polluters and the welfare of the river generally. It is not only officialdom which has regard for the welfare of rivers, but also a great many other people who resort there for recreation, or who live near the river.
I slightly deprecate one thing my hon. Friend said, when he suggested that there must be a conflict between industrial and fishing or amenity interests. I do not


think there need be necessarily. I believe that it would be enormously in the interest of industrial users and riparian owners if every river were so clean that trout could live in it, and if every estuary were so clean that salmon could run up it. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote an example from my own experience.
I am a little on both sides of the fence on this Bill. I support the fishing and amenity interests mainly, but I also have an industrial interest in that I am director of a shipping company. In the last 10 or 15 years, ship owners have had great anxiety and been put to great cost due to corrosion on the hulls of ships. It has become very much worse in the last few years, particularly in rivers such as the Tyne and the Thames, which happen to be the rivers concerned with the ships in which I am interested. No one quite knows the reason for it. We know that in both those places pollution has increased enormously in the last 15 years. We know that pollution generally is getting no better. Fishermen and those interested in amenities both have a common interest in wishing to obtain their objective more quickly. Therefore, let us work together as much as possible.
The Amendment has been very amply moved. I only want to emphasise that while it appears to be reasonable that some safeguard should be found for persons who, on the passing of this Bill will otherwise automatically become criminals, it is most vital that any defence given them should be only in respect of existing discharges and should in no way prejudice the future. We know well, from the history of pollution and the endeavours which have been made under existing legislation to combat it, of the checks, disillusionment and frustration that have taken place in the past. We want, by the passing of this Bill, to turn over a new leaf and to make an effort to change things in the future in this respect. I am certain that to pledge the future by allowing polluters to be excused under the Bill will be fatal to our object.

Mr. Philips Price: I wish to give general support to the Amendment and to refer more particularly, as I understand it will be in order, to my Amendment in Clause 8, line 20, concerning the upkeep and maintenance of appliances which otherwise might cause pollution. I think

that there is a connection between that Clause and paragraph (c) of the Amendment we are now considering, which provides for the best practical means at a reasonable cost to render the matter entering a stream or that part thereof harmless and inoffensive.
My Amendment deals with that point in rather more detail, by laying it down that the river board may postulate that an offence may be committed if an appliance which an undertaking or a person may have is not kept in repair or, for instance, in the case of a tank, is not cleaned out. I moved an Amendment during the Committee stage on those lines, but the Minister thought that it went too far because it laid down a provision that repairs should be carried out, and that if they were not carried out that would constitute an offence. He thought—and I see his point—that at a time like this, when there are shortages, it might be impossible to carry out repairs.
My present Amendment is asking that there should be a
contravention arising from the misuse of or failure to use or keep in repair any means which at the time of the contravention were available to the person committing the offence…
That does not make it obligatory upon him to get new material. That is a point which links up with the Amendment just moved, and it is one which, I hope, the Minister will consider to see if it cannot be laid down that it shall constitute an offence if neglect of apparatus of this kind is not undertaken.

Mr. Fort: While I have much sympathy with the Amendment, I was pleased to hear that the Minister has accepted the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), which is, I think, rather more precise and clear. Indeed, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) would, I think have satisfied those with whom I have spoken in connection with industrial and municipal affairs had it not been for the restricting nature of the proviso about new discharges.
I want to make it quite plain to the House that those with whom I have spoken feel very strongly—I would say just as strongly as those who are concerned with the anglers—about the need for clean water. My hon. and gallant


Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) gave the House an example of how damaging to industrial affairs impure water may be, and there is no wish on the part of those connected with industry or with the municipalities to seek some legal way of avoiding or circumventing the intentions of the bylaws.
The restricting proviso which my hon. Friend has put into his Amendment makes it almost impracticable. It almost defeats the object he so rightly sets out to reach, because he places the municipalities, with their ever-increasing housing estates and the extra sewage which will be coming from them, and the industries which we also hope will be expanding, in a very difficult position by bringing in this proviso about the new discharges.
I do not think it is the wish of any of us that the passing of this Bill should result in severe penalties against those who in the course of their activities produce effluent. We do not wish to bring penalties against them, but to keep up a constant jabbing to make sure that they are adopting the best means technically available to deal with sewage. Those with whom I have spoken feel that my hon. Friend has failed to recognise fully the difficulties of those who are having, willy nilly, to produce effluents and sewage.
I myself have put down an Amendment which is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Carlisle, although I believe that it avoids some of the legal problems which his Amendment, as originally drafted, would confront the Minister. It is for that reason that I hope the House will support the Minister in his proposal to accept the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren) indicated dissent.

Mr. Fort: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to accept it. Am I correct?

Mr. Dalton: I undertook that I would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle at the appropriate time.

6.30 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not the first Amendment, but the second.

Mr. Fort: There has been no thought-reading on my part; that is a gift which unfortunately I do not possess. But I am glad that the Minister is accepting the best practical means in the Amendments put forward, and I hope and ask that the House will sustain the Minister in his decision on this matter.

Mr. MacColl: I do not propose to attempt to follow all the details of this exceedingly complicated and technical Bill, but with the general principle behind it, I think that everyone must be in the warmest sympathy.
I represent a constituency in which, so far as I can see, it would be exceedingly difficult to carry on with any degree of security without the benefit of some kind of protection as has been suggested, either in this Amendment, or, as I would much prefer, if I may allude to it, in the Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). The heavy chemical industry in Widnes has just celebrated its centenary and if in the earlier days it had had the same sense of gravity about river pollution as we all feel now there is no doubt that a much more careful method would have been adopted to prevent some of the disastrous things which have happened to the Mersey during the past 100 years.
The fact remains, however, that there is this basic industry which my right hon. Friend would appear to encourage to go there, because it would appear that that area is regarded by him as suitable for noxious industries and that it is desirable in his opinion, that we should suffer from it there. We cannot hope immediately to be able to avoid the danger of pollution, particularly in these days when it is difficult to carry out capital improvements. I can quite see that there are very real and practical difficulties about dealing with this problem at once, and I agree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) that there should be considerable and constant pressure on industry to prevent this kind of pollution.
I am quite certain that the members of the heavy chemical industry would be more relieved in mind if they knew there was no danger of legal proceedings being taken where they are doing everything possible and where the Minister is at any rate satisfied that they are attempting in the best way they can to carry on what


is generally recognised as being a very important and basic industry in the country.
I hope, therefore, that what I understand my right hon. Friend to have said is true, and that he will take steps to this end. I say that in no sense of wanting to be regarded as a polluter. But if he does give protection to the heavy chemical industry, I hope he will do all he can to provide adequate capital resources for them, so that they may see that this kind of thing is stopped as quickly as possible. Then the day may come when one may be able to walk by the banks of the Mersey in comfort, even though it is not possible to bathe in it or to catch fish in it.

Mr. Robson-Brown: I support the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). As I see it, during the discussion today the interests have been those who consider the fishes rather than those who are primarily interested on behalf of the nation in providing both the loaves and the fishes. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) is good in intention but it only goes half way, which is not satisfactory. He seeks to distinguish between the hardened criminal and the first offender and deals more lightly with the hardened criminal, which is not traditional British justice.
As I understand the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle, it seeks to recognise the realities of the position so far as industry is concerned. Pollution is a question of degree, and I doubt whether there are many industrial concerns whose works or methods can guarantee absolute purity of any effluent. I know that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said that in any case any industry desired to ensure in the performance of its daily task that the best practicable and reasonably available means had been used to render matter entering a stream harmless and inoffensive, but I think that the operative words, "harmless and inoffensive" are the important part of the Amendment. I do not think that that Amendment weakens the Bill, but rather that it strengthens it, and I am pleased to know that the Minister has indicated his willingness to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lionel Heald: It is a pleasant feature of this House that sometimes one is able to disagree not only with hon. Members on one's own side, but also, as in this case, with one's next-door neighbour, as he is in this instance, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. W. Robson-Brown). It may perhaps be that the fishing in his part of the Thames is not as good as it is in the pleasant part of the river running by Runnymede and Chertsey. There are a large number of fish still in that part of the river, but I regret to say that there are not so many as there were a generation ago, and they are much less lively. Therefore, there are a great many people in this country who are anxious to see that the interests of the fish are safeguarded.
Some people say that this is a very small and unimportant matter compared with such things as the hon. Member for Esher has been mentioning; but I think it very desirable that we should preserve those amenities so far as we can. Those who have spoken to me about this matter have pointed out that it is very unsatisfactory to find that reference is made to what is reasonable in these cases. Our experience in legal cases is that when one comes to balance the two things against each other, there is only one result. We talk about what is the reasonable cost to a great industrial undertaking, on the one hand, and, on the other, what is the value of the fishing to the man who fishes there; and there is apt to be no doubt about the result. Therefore, we feel that if an Amendment in any of these forms is accepted, it will be bad for the fish.
There are three alternative Amendments, as I understand it, and they are being discussed together. I feel rather like the man at the court-martial who was asked, "Do you object to being tried by me as president, or by any member of this court-martial?" To which he retorted "I object to the whole so-and-so lot of you." But I must deal with the Amendments one by one. Clearly the first one, that moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), is much the least objectionable. I hope that if it is necessary for us to accept one of these Amendments, it will be that one and not the later one in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), which I would describe, from the point of view of the fish and fishermen, as "the polluter's charter."
I recognise at once that it would apply only where no standard has been laid down. It has been said that is an exceptional case and that we need not worry about it; but I think that is just the sort of case one has to be careful about, where for some reason or other the board has not done its duty. There is no doubt about this—and the right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong—that anyone who can show he is carrying on an industrial process which necessarily involves killing very many fish in the river is entitled to go on doing so. It sounds rather startling. I suggest that the House should hesitate very much before it agrees to a provision of that kind.

Mr. Turton: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has given premature approval to an Amendment which has not even been explained by the hon. Member who put it down and before he has heard arguments against it. I refer to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). It is an Amendment which will destroy the object of the Bill, which is supported, I think, by the Minister of Local Government and Planning and by Members in all parts of the House.
It seems that the Bill, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as a Bill for the prevention of pollution, is rapidly becoming a Bill for the encouragement of pollution. I want the right hon. Gentleman to think again on the very premature decision he has given. The Amendment deals with the situation in which a standard has not been prescribed in respect of any stream. That will apply to the upper reaches of a river. That is the part where no standard will be applied because the standard required is one of absolute purity. In those upper reaches where there is at present a discharge, it is only reasonable that the industry responsible for the discharge should have the sort of protection suggested in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). To give this wide general power of licence under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle would be disastrous to all the upper reaches of rivers, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.
The next objection I have to the proposed Amendment is that the House is

forgetting—at any rate the Members who have so far addressed the House appear to have forgotten—that until the expiration of seven years no proceedings will be taken except on the authority of the Minister. Therefore, the Amendment will apply in eight years' time. The only justification which I have heard advanced in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle is that at the present time it is difficult for industries to stop being polluters because of lack of materials and labour, but surely that argument cannot weigh in eight years' time.
I am speaking for river boards who have carried on their function throughout the last 70 years in industrial areas with success because they were armed with effective powers. Step by step in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has taken those powers away from river boards, so that our river boards now feel that they cannot stop pollution under the Bill as it is at present framed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make the position of river boards in industrial areas completely ineffective, as he would do if he were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle.
The West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board has acted under effective powers for the last 70 years. If the right hon. Gentleman would read their last report, which gives the full history of their activities, he would see that it is only the fact that they were armed with effective powers of bringing prosecutions that has made them able in many cases to bring legal proceedings to clear up the filth and sewage that existed in the rivers before the creation of the river boards.
6.45 p.m.
I appeal to all hon. Members who represent Yorkshire constituencies, to whatever party they may belong, to see that this case is not given away. We did have in the late nineteenth century very horrible rivers in Yorkshire, but because we were armed with powers we have been able to clean up those rivers. It will be a very sad day for Parliament if, by the action of the right hon. Gentleman, which I believe is premature, the whole case is given away.

Mr. Fort: How many prosecutions have actually been brought?

Mr. Turton: I could not tell my hon. Friend how many in the last 70 years,


but there have been a very large number. Some cases, in the early stages, went to the High Court. Industrialists and other would-be polluters soon learned that they were dealing with a reasonable rivers board, and in recent years prosecutions have diminished.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There are two Amendments before the House. The first was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). The second, in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) has not been explained, but the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is prepared to accept it in principle. The difference between the two Amendments is that the first is limited to cases of existing pollution at the date of the coming into operation of the Measure, whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle is quite unlimited and would, were it operated, let out any case of future pollution, whenever started, perhaps 25 years hence. It is true that both the Amendments are concerned only with the situation in which no standard has been laid down, so that they are limited in scope. There will undoubtedly be cases where no standard is laid down for some little time to come.
The difference is extremely important, in this way. We have at the moment a number of industrial concerns and local authorities creating pollution in a manner which is either not an offence at all, or does not come under any existing legislation or under common law. Where we find those circumstances, it seems reasonable to say: "We cannot possibly, by passing a Measure of this sort, land them in the extraordinary expense which they might possibly incur, or the possibility of prosecution." Therefore, some special steps have to be taken to enable them to carry on.
The second Amendment would deal with the case of someone opening up a new factory, for example, in six months' time, after the passing of the Bill and before any bylaws setting up a standard can be formulated. The factory which succeeded in doing that need only show that it is doing its best to prevent pollution, and it would have a perfect defence against any prosecution, until bylaws were formulated. Does the hon. Member for Carlisle really think that in the event of bylaws being formulated three months,

six months or a year after that, when the factory is erected and is in operation, and when thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, it will be practical politics to say: "Now that we have promulgated the bylaws we are going to close you down because you have disregarded the Act?" Of course not. It means that when anyone starts a source of pollution before bylaws are made he will acquire a vested interest under the proposed Amendment which will drive a coach and horses through the whole of the Bill. For that reason, there is the whole world of difference between the two Amendments.
We are in the unfortunate—it may be fortunate—position of not knowing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman will say. He merely indicated that he has in principle accepted something which is not very definite. I beg him to consider very deeply what he will have to say and to indicate that, while to some extent he accepts the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle, he is at all events sympathetic to the principle underlying the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend and also to say that he does not intend to open the door to new effluents, but will limit this provision severely to cases which genuinely cannot be helped.

Mr. Odey: One gathers that the Minister's mind is inclined towards accepting in general principle the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). If that is so, I suggest that he might look again at the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), which seeks in general principle to cover the same point but contains wording which appears to offer certain advantages.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I should like to say a word about the principle behind some of these Amendments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not introduce into the Bill the principle that, a priori, a factory is more important than a river. That seems to be the assumption behind some Amendments. Just because the factory is man-made and the river God-made, it does not follow that man ought to be in front of God there.
Yet the principle seems to be that, provided a factory can establish the point that it has taken all practicable measures to purify an effluent, apparently, if the effluent is poisonous, the whole river can


be poisoned because bylaws have not been made. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might consider devising a form of words which would not put a factory necessarily and a priori in front of a river. There should be equality between them. What I have suggested seems to be the danger of the principle lying behind some of the Amendments.

Mr. Hargreaves: It might be as well if I now speak on the Amendment which has been under discussion. I cannot move it at present, but I shall do so in due course. It ought to be said, first of all, that the Amendment begins by saying:
Where a standard has not been prescribed.…
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the river boards to lay down bylaws after negotiating over a period of time with the people who are using the river for one purpose or another and after making various tests. Every user of the river will have the opportunity of consultation prior to the making of a bylaw.
If there is then objection to the bylaws, an approach may be made to the Minister and the Minister will then be called upon to hold a public inquiry. Even after that time an approach may be made by the interested parties to the Minister prior to the confirmation of the bylaw. There is obviously ample provision for consultation prior to the setting of standards and the framing of bylaws, and I suggest that that fully meets the point made so eloquently by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) about new effluents. Any new effluent creates a need immediately for a standard and ultimately for a bylaw. There is necessity for consultation, negotiation, tests and a standard immediately a new effluent occurs.
What has been said about an industrial process continuing for eight years before a standard is laid down and bylaws are framed is begging the whole question. We must recognise that, while the river boards will be anxious to lay down standards and make bylaws, it will not be possible to do all that work at once. It needs adequate and competent staff. It may well be that not all river boards will be equally eager, and some may lag behind in the setting up of standards and the framing of bylaws. Let us recognise what follows from that. Is it not the case that, if no bylaw is framed, the whole penal weight of Clause 2 will fall upon

an offender? The river board might find it more effective to proceed by neglecting to make bylaws and, instead, using the whole weight of Clause 2 against such offenders. Safeguards ought to be provided.
I would draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) the fact that the Amendment is not designed to protect factories. Neither factories nor industries are mentioned in it. It arises as a result of the desire of my own local authority, expressed at their monthly meeting and communicated to me by the town clerk of Carlisle, that their interests shall be safeguarded in case the river board which has already been created finds it better to proceed by using the weight of Clause 2 instead of negotiating and preparing standards and bylaws.
As hon. Members will know, the lovely River Eden has several tributaries—the Petteril, the Caldew and the Little Caldew. On the Little Caldew there are 13 industrial firms—textile works and dyeworks. All contribute in some small measure to the pollution of that stream and the millrace which flows into the Eden. In spite of pollution the River Eden is still very beautiful and full of fish. There must be an attempt on the part of all of us to balance the needs of industry, the local authority and the amenity value and beauty of such a river.
7.0 p.m.
My Amendment is not an attempt to meet those factories alone. Upstairs the Committee was ready to recognise the fact that particular factories might make-approaches by negotiation prior to the framing of bylaws, and that if objections were made at a later stage they could meet the Minister and have a local inquiry. I think their needs were met in that regard. In my view it is impossible in the beginning stages completely to clean up the tributaries to which I have referred. It is a gradual process in which we can encourage the river boards, and, after seven years, they ought to be able to carry on their work without any assistance from the central government. However, there is the danger that where bylaws are not made the weight of Clause 2 falls on the offender.
Until the stage is reached when standards have been set and bylaws framed in consultation with all concerned,


the protection provided under this Amendment is reasonable for the local authorities, for the factories concerned, and for safeguarding the amenity value and beauty of the rivers which this Bill attempts to serve.

Mr. Renton: The point which we have been discussing for the last half hour or so is the most important point in the Bill, because it touches upon the dilemma which all people who wish to see rivers purified have to face, namely, the fact that the community has established certain ways which pollute the rivers, and it involves immense cost to try to alter those ways, especially quickly.
Bearing in mind that river boards will have a long period in time for fixing standards, one seriously hopes that the hypothesis upon which the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) and the other two Amendments are based will never arise; in other words, the hypothesis that the standards will not have been fixed. If, however, as the responsible Minister administering the Act, the Minister feels seriously that there must be some kind of provision on the lines of one or other of these Amendments, I most earnestly hope that he will keep an open mind as to which of the three Amendments gets nearest towards fulfilling the desired method of achieving the object. It seems to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, being much nearer and much more logical in its application than the other two Amendments which may be considered, is possibly the best.
However, for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) I am against all three Amendments. Whichever has to be accepted, I ask the Minister most earnestly to consider the following point, which I put to him as one who has had some experience of practice in the criminal courts, including practice before lay justices who would have to try these offences. In the Amendment of my hon. Friend and in the other Amendments, special defences are raised. Special defences are, as we know, a mixed blessing. The burden of proof is normally upon the prosecution, but whenever a bunch of lay justices sees a special defence in any Statute their minds im-

mediately leap to the possibility of placing the burden of proof upon the defence.
Although I have no argument to raise other than this in favour of the polluters, because I am dead against them, I say in fairness to the polluters that if we are to enable special defences of this kind to be raised, we should also make it clear in the Bill that the onus continues to lie upon the prosecution in spite of those special defences. There is nothing in this Bill at the moment which would make that clear to lay justices.

Mr. Mitchison: I was glad to be able to support the representations of my own local authority as regards sewage disposal. They have made similar representations to me on this matter. I also had representations made directly in the opposite sense from the local fishery board which still subsists in that area. I have been listening with care and attention to all that has been said, and I beg my right hon. Friend to give this matter considerably more examination than he can have been able to give it so far.
I come down without much hesitation on the side of the river, the pure water, the anglers or the fish, whichever is the right interest to name in this connection. Incidentally, I always like the way in which anglers who want to kill the fish identify themselves with its interests. May I state my reasons as shortly as I can? I do not think it is an easy matter, but what we all want to see is that in almost every case standards are laid down. These Amendments are to apply only in cases where standards are not laid down. I agree in that respect with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves)—that is all we want. That will take time, and meanwhile one has to remember that there can be no prosecution at all except by the Attorney-General or by a river board. That is exceedingly important.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the common law rights remain absolutely unchanged?

Mr. Mitchison: I speak subject to correction, but I have in mind Clause 8 of the Bill. Under the Clause with which we are dealing, prosecutions have to be brought either by the Attorney-General or by a river board.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I intervene again for clarification? The Minister has put down an Amendment to Clause 10. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the top of page 12 of the Bill, he will see that subsection (5) now says:
Save as expressly provided by this Act, nothing contained in it shall affect the law relating to nuisance.
If the Minister's Amendment is moved and accepted, this subsection will read:
Nothing contained in this Act shall affect the law relating to nuisance.
So the common law rights will remain absolutely untouched.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has got the point quite right. What we are considering is prosecutions under this particular part of the Bill. Those prosecutions, if I read the Bill aright, have to be brought either by the Attorney-General or by a river board. We are not considering the very different case of a nuisance at common law. I may be wrong, but that is how I read it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I thoroughly agree with, and, indeed, I defer to, the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment on this point, but the overriding risk of the common law action remains in this respect, as in all others.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member is on this occasion a little unduly suspicious of a Greek bearing a present, because I am trying to support his Amendment as against more sweeping ones but say that his Amendment goes too far.
Perhaps I may elaborate my reasons for supporting the Amendment. As I see it, there can be no doubt that the great majority of prosecutions will be brought under those sorts of auspices. Therefore, what we are considering is a defence which is to be put up against the public authority or the water authority. When I look at the terms proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, which are, I think, the most sweeping ones, I feel that they go very much too far. It is true that the burden of proving reasonableness is put upon the defence, but to have to convict a man of not doing a reasonable thing always seems to me to be a very unfortunate legal expedient and one to be avoided. These words are not new—they

have occurred in this type of Measure before; and it is notorious that it has been exceedingly difficult to get convictions and to prevent pollution on that account.
It is only the existence of a rather more sweeping Act—by which, if one polluted everybody's water, one was not in practice immune, but if someone killed a single British fish, or even its food, he was convicted—that saved the rivers from worse pollution. Therefore, I feel that that particular Amendment would be, as an hon. Member opposite has said, a bit of "a polluters' charter." I do not hesitate to quote or to agree with hon. Members opposite when I have seen a remarkable agreement on rather different lines between my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald).
Then one asks, "What is the mischief? How far are industry, on the one hand, or the local authority, in dealing with its sewage and so on, on the other hand, going to be held to unreasonable standards or some unreasonable degree of work or speed of work?" and I come to the conclusion that this is not really a matter that we should try to deal with by an exception Clause of this sort. The real protection lies in the limitations on prosecution, and I should have liked personally to have seen in the Bill, if it is not too late to put it there, some method of hurrying up or even of obliging, river boards to lay down standards in appropriate cases. That would be much more satisfactory than leaving any of these loopholes.
7.15 p.m.
If we are to leave any loophole at all, there is a logical case for the loophole which is confined to new effluents and which also deals with prevention of outflow into the stream, really a most material point; and that, highly qualified, is the most I can offer to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), because I feel that it is a mistake to accept any of these Amendments. The loopholes which we make will prove to be as large as similar loopholes have proved to be in the past, and one has to remember that local authorities and industry have usually both the means and the voice to express themselves and that the fisherman resembles


the fish in this: that he is numerous but silent.

Captain Waterhouse: I was not in the House when the Minister gave his nod, therefore I do not quite know to how much of the Amendments he assented. I agree, however, with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and with the many views that have been expressed that we are going on to extremely dangerous ground if these Amendments are inserted into the Bill and that the Bill may well become, far from a Bill to prevent, a Bill to perpetuate, or even to promote, pollution.
If the Minister wants to accept some Amendments on such lines as this, ways and means can be found. Like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I have been asked by the municipal authority of a large city to support the Amendment. I have written and given my reasons why I am certainly not prepared to do so, in entirety at least, I am the last person in the House to try to endeavour, at a time like the present, to make local authorities or any other authorities spend vast sums of money on any schemes that are not absolutely essential. It may be that in certain cases it is quite impossible to set up any plant or apparatus which can purify certain effluents, but when we say that they have only to prove that no such apparatus is "reasonably available," surely we are giving them far too large a loophole.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to accept the substance of the first Amendment, he might leave out the three words "and reasonably available." The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), when advocating his Amendment, was wise enough to omit them himself and used only the words "the best practicable means." If the Minister were to include in the Bill "the best practicable means," which takes in, by and large, everything that can and should be done without saying that it has to be immediately available or reasonably available, that Amendment might not have injurious results.
I am not quite certain whether the Minister's nod included also the Amendment in page 2, line 25, at the end, insert:

(3) The said subsection shall not penalise the discharge into the stream of the effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority by means of a storm water overflow if the storm water overflow has been so constructed and is so used that the normal flow of sewage in the sewer is diluted by rain water so as to prevent or reduce any undue pollution.

Mr. Dalton: That has been dealt with.

Captain Waterhouse: Then I confine my remarks to the first of these Amendments and I urge the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to consider it in detail—or, better still, now, because we are on Report stage and there will be no further opportunity of making the alteration—to accept the Amendment if the three words "and reasonably available" are left out.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend, as other hon. Members have done, to think again on whether he should accept any of these Amendments. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) that none of these Amendments is necessary and if any is less objectionable than others, it is the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent).
I was frankly shocked to get the impression that my right hon. Friend was going to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). It seemed to me that my hon. Friend let the cat out of the bag when he said he was not so interested in the industrial effects of the matter but from the point of view of the local authorities. It is perfectly clear that tonight we are between two almost sinister and very powerful pressure groups. One is the point of view of industry represented by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) in his Amendment, and the other the point of view of the local authorities represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle in his Amendment.
But we have other interests which we, as hon. Members, ought to seek to protect—the interests of the general public, the health of the people, the defence of amenities, the defence of anglers and various other sporting organisations. I hope my right hon. Friend will not be too placatory to these


powerful interests, but will also take account of the points I have mentioned. I very strongly urge my right hon. Friend not to commit himself to accepting any of these Amendments tonight, but to see whether he can be as accommodating as he was in Committee and think over the matter a little further to see whether anything can be done in another place, if anything is really necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It certainly seems that the House finds itself in a difficulty with the Amendments before it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) said, ours was by nature of a compromise Amendment, but I and my hon. Friends would be willing to withdraw this Amendment if all the other Amendments were also withdrawn. Then the Minister would have a clear field to consider the matter when the Bill goes to another place. We undoubtedly desire to find some modus vivendi, but I am not anxious that any kind of polluters' charter should be given. We have discussed the matter for a considerable time and, if the sponsors of the other Amendments will undertake not to move their Amendments, I would have the greatest pleasure in asking my hon. Friends whether they find it possible to withdraw this Amendment, and we could then pass on.

Mr. Dalton: We have had a very interesting discussion on this group of Amendments—

Brigadier Peto: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment to call attention to something that he said in Committee:
I think the Committee were inclined to be a little soft at one stage this morning, and I do not think we want to let off new arrivals who proceed to discharge effluents into streams. We do not want them mollycoddled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th February, 1951, c. 183.]

Mr. Dalton: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I always enjoy having my past speeches quoted—provided they are accurately quoted. It is helpful to debate. It seems that there is a feeling in all parts of the House that this matter should be looked at again to see whether there is an alternative form of words. Earlier, when we were discussing a previous bunch of Amendments, I said that in principle I was always open to considera-

tion of verbal improvements such as have been suggested and in principle I was in agreement with the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) which is most simply described as the "best practicable…means" Amendment. I said that I thought there was much to be said for that Amendment. I did not commit myself to the exact wording but I thought there was something to be said for it.
This is a discussion about the transitional period, and I entirely agree with those who say that the transitional period should be abbreviated as much as possible. We want the bylaws passed and the river boards to take up their duties and fulfil them, and we want the standards laid down and enforced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), after all, is the father of this Bill—I have only taken it over at a later stage—and I wholly agree with what he said. He hopes that we shall be on the side of pure rivers and that we shall not put the interests of man-made things before the interests of the beauties of nature, or words to that effect. That is the view which enthused all hon. Members in Committee and is generally accepted in the House. We do not want polluters' charters; indeed the whole purpose of the Bill is to destroy pollution.
The practical question is what is the best way to deal with this transitional period? If it is common ground—and I think it is—that we want the transitional period to be over quickly, what are we to do in the interval? I have listened with attention to the debate. I do not think any of the Amendments is word-perfect—certainly not. We are now at the Report stage and the only further resource left to us is that of another place for some new Amendment, if none of these Amendments is carried tonight but all are withdrawn. In the light of the discussion, that may be the best thing to do, without prejudice to the exact form of words evolved in the interval. I think that, on the whole, that would be the best course. I will undertake to give very close personal attention to the matter and to consult with those who have taken a particular interest in it, of whom there are several on both sides of the House. We will try to get some generally accepted formula.
I noted the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), with whom I worked once at the Board of Trade and therefore always pay personal attention to what he says now, as I used to then; and I hope that is mutual. He suggested that it might meet some of the difficulty if we left out the words "and reasonably available" from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle. I will look into that. What attracted me to that Amendment in the first instance was the words "best practicable…means." I think that is a reasonable proposition. It would be subject to test and the Minister would have his view about it.
I confess that I was thinking a little of the local authority activities, new housing estates and so on, and it seemed to me that if the authority housing its people was employing the "best practicable…means"—and we understand all the difficulties about the capital investment programme, and so on—it was going a little far to say that it should still be subject to prosecution.

Mr. Bevan: There is no very sharp division here, but what we do not want to do is to import into the Bill a statement which gives a presumptive right to the poisoner as against the river.

Mr. Dalton: I quite agree and we shall have carefully to consider where the onus of proof should lie, and so on. I think the best thing would be, since this is a non-party Measure in a large degree and the general consensus of opinion is that we ought to look at this again, if all three Amendments were withdrawn, and I will then give great consideration to an Amendment which may be proposed in another place. It will come before the House again. I suggest this is the best way of dealing with it.

Mr. Nugent: In the light of that undertaking—

Mr. Speaker: If any other hon. Member wants to speak after the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: There is no sharp division on either side of the House on this matter. I wish to ask the Minister a question about what will

happen if he later finds that a firm or organisation say that they have done all that they humanly can do to prevent pollution but, despite that, there is pollution such as we have in the Chumet River at Leek below the dyeworks, where all life is extinct for 12 miles down the river. In such cases a decision has to be made. Is that factory to be allowed to continue causing that pollution?
It seems to me that modern man has to make a choice. What is the purpose in living and how can we live the full life? If rivers like the Chumet, the Trent, the Dove and the Manifold, which 30, 40 or 50 years ago were famous Izaac Walton territory are being completely destroyed, the time will come when man will have to balance his economic desires with psychological ones. I wish to make a special appeal. In the Leek Conservancy and the Trent River we have this pollution.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is polluted before it comes to Stoke.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend also realises that there is unfortunately heavy pollution in Stoke also, but we will not discuss that because all the North Staffordshire representatives are united on the need for preserving the amenities of life in that area.
Accordingly, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that if this Bill is passed in its present form we are not departing altogether from the old understanding that all pollution is illegal. I hope that a careful balance of the amenities of society and of the industrial considerations will be made, because as this island is becoming more populated and industry is growing it means that more of our rivers and our countryside are being destroyed. Man does not live by bread alone, and I desire that at least some of the amenities of life shall be maintained for the countryside, even at the expense of occasional extra cost to industry.

Mr. Nugent: In view of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given that he will look at these three Amendments in the light of the discussion we have had, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment. I should like to make just one comment, namely that this Amendment is proposed in the context of a river board not having set up standards. The right hon. Gentleman the


Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who made a timely intervention to save his child from getting a completely dirty face, may be assured that our wish also is to keep it clean.
I would point out to the Minister that the words of which he complained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) do not appear in my Amendment. My Amendment applies to existing effluents only. I hope that when the Minister comes to consider this matter, he will bear in mind the great weight of feeling in the House on that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out:
(subject to the foregoing provision).
The purpose of this Amendment is clarification. It paves the way for another Amendment I shall move in a few moments.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you propose to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself? I am referring to the Amendment in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the beginning, to "subject," in line 20, and to insert:
(2) A person who discharges into a sewer any trade effluent the discharge of which is not authorised by the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, 1937, or is made without compliance with the conditions subject to which it was authorised and with the bye-laws under that Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) of this section and the local authority into whose sewer the trade effluent is discharged or through whose sewer it passes shall not be committing an offence punishable under this Act by permitting such trade effluent to enter into a stream.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not calling that because it is partly covered by a subsequent Amendment, in page 2, line 25, on which the two Amendments can be discussed together.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
except where either—

(a) that matter was discharged into a sewer of the local authority without their consent and they were entitled to refuse to receive the discharge into the sewer; or

(b) that matter is discharged from their sewer or sewerage disposal works into a sewer vested in another local authority and that other authority consent, or are not entitled to refuse, to receive the discharge into the sewer vested in them."

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the local authority who discharge an effluent into a stream shall be responsible if there is pollution unless the matter complained of was discharged illegally into their sewer. In that case, the responsibility shall rest on the person from whom the polluted matter emanated. A local authority cannot be held responsible if someone has illegally flooded their sewer; it is the illegal flooder who is responsible.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the intention of this Amendment is to make it clear that a person who discharges noxious effluent into a sewer of a local authority is to be regarded as the person who permits it to enter the stream and is responsible for the pollution. I am bound to say that subsection (2), to which I put down an Amendment, is certainly not drafted in language which makes perfectly clear the point the right hon. Gentleman has now made. One can read that subsection and obtain from it an entirely opposite impression from what its meaning is intended to be.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman considers that the Amendment now before us will make it quite plain that the local authority have no responsibility where the effluent is discharged into a sewer, either without their consent or in circumstances under which the terms of consent to the discharge of the effluent into the sewer have not been complied with. I am not quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment effectively meets that latter point, and there is an Amendment to this proposed Amendment on the Order Paper, which stands in my name, which is intended to make that point perfectly clear.
If, in fact, an effluent is discharged into the local authority sewer contrary to the conditions under which the consent has been given, I suggest that without the Amendment I have put down to the Amendment we are now discussing it is not certain that the local authority cannot be regarded as having consented to receive the effluent. If the right hon. Gentleman


felt able to accept my Amendment to his proposed Amendment, I think it would be quite plain that the local authority cannot be held to have consented to receive an effluent if the effluent does not comply with the conditions under which it has been agreed that the effluent shall be discharged into the sewer. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my Amendment to his proposed Amendment and thus make perfectly plain the meaning of this subsection, which, to say the least, is a little obscure.

Mr. Dalton: I know that the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) has had much experience in dealing with legislation of this kind, but I am advised that his Amendment is not really necessary and that the meaning of my Amendment is perfectly clear. I am advised that if a local authority has consented to receive a trade effluent on certain conditions and those conditions are not complied with, the discharge is one to which they have not consented. I should have thought that to be a commonsense interpretation. If, on the other hand, the consent is unconditional, the trade is still bound and limited by the trade effluent notice which the trade will serve on the authority. That is what I am advised.

Mr. Hutchinson: The difficulty is that if a local authority has consented to receive an effluent upon certain conditions and the effluent is discharged into the sewer without their consent, but it then turns out that the conditions have not been complied with, it makes the position difficult for the local authority. I would be prepared to agree that the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the Amendment might be accepted as the correct one, but I am concerned to make it quite clear that the consent given subject to conditions is not to be treated as a consent if at the time when the effluent was received the local authority was not aware that the conditions had not been performed by the person discharging the effluent into the sewer.

Mr. Dalton: I am prepared to make this suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Would he consult with one of my legal advisers and see whether he and they could arrive at an agreement

about the matter? I am advised that the Amendment to my Amendment is not necessary, but on the other hand it seems that there is an element of doubt; we could consider it in another place. If what I suggest is acceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am prepared to make it a proposal.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will take the course that he has suggested.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was really talking to his Amendment, which was not moved. It is clear from what he says that he does not wish to move his Amendment to the Amendment. Is that so?

Mr. Hutchinson: That is so. I no longer desire to move the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) The Minister may by order (which shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made by him) direct that the said subsection shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge of water raised or drained from a mine into any specified stream or part of a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from the mine.
We now come to a subsection which deals with the water which is pumped out of mines, and in the vast majority of cases out of coal mines. This subsection was not in the Bill when originally it was before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee moved this subsection as an Amendment; it was accepted; and it is now, of course, part of the Bill. I do not quarrel with the principle involved in the subsection, which seems to be reasonable enough, namely, that there has to be special provision in the case of mine water which has to be raised and put some place.
The objection that I have to the subsection as it now stands is that, prima facie, polluting water which is to be taken out of a mine is to be legalised, and it is only in the exceptional case where the Minister seeks by regulation to make the pumping of such polluting water an offence that it will be an offence. My


Amendment turns it round the other way. It proposes that, instead of making the polluting water normally legal, such water from a mine shall be an offence in the ordinary way, but that the Minister may by regulation make any exceptions that he pleases. That was indeed the suggestion put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in Committee, and I think it commended itself to the Committee.
7.45 p.m.
It may be that there will be little time to review the position between now and when the Bill comes into operation. There will be, I think, two months under the Bill as it stands and such additional time as may be taken to put the Bill on the Statute Book. If that be so, I should certainly have no objection to deferring the operation of my proposed Amendment for some reasonable period, say, six months or even a year, but it is wrong, in a Bill which aims at preventing pollution, to put in a subsection which expressly legalises pollution, and only makes the polluter an offender by regulation. There is a matter of principle here, and for that reason I have moved my Amendment.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
Although I am only seconding the Amendment, I feel more concerned about it than my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I also have no quarrel with the principle of the subsection as it stands at present, but I am totally against giving a free hand for all time to collieries, and that includes the tin collieries in Cornwall, to discharge the water that they pump from the mine directly into the nearest stream. I am in favour of the procedure whereby the process should be reversed, and that they should do it under licence, where necessary.
I am reinforced in putting forward this proposal by three things. First, in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, I find that this subsection was not included at all. I understand that the collieries there found it unnecessary. I do not say that the same thing applies to all the collieries in England, but a great many of them are very similar, and quite a number of the

collieries in England could do without this privilege, just as they do in Scotland.
I should like to say one word about the nature of the water that is pumped from these mines and why it is so dangerous to fish life and other life in the rivers. In that connection, I want to refer to a small volume written by Mr. H. D. Turing for the British Field Sports Society entitled "Pollution." I have several copies of it, and if the Minister has not seen it. I will give him a copy afterwards. One of the subjects that Mr. Turing went into in Volume 3 was the pollution from mine water of certain rivers, including the Weir.
He says that while in certain cases water pumped from a mine is comparatively clean, not infrequently it contains a great deal of ochre water, which is water impregnated with fine clay and oxide of iron. This ochre water forms a deposit on the bed of the stream sometimes two or three inches deep, and it completely sterilises all plant life as well as animal and fish life. The little insects that live under the stones in a stream are asphyxiated and overcome. This deposit is dropped by the river when it is running fast. It is very easily precipitated. If that is the case, how more easily would it be precipitated if the water were first allowed to go into some sort of pond or settling tank and then go on again. It is obvious that it is a very simple thing to do, and it would not be expensive to make the pond. It would be wrong to allow this ochre water to destroy all life in the rivers, and to do more than that because in destroying the bacteriological life one is destroying nature's own process for improving rivers and clearing other pollution—the bacteria break up other forms of pollution, particularly organic sewage.
I am reinforced by one other matter. The collieries would be ready to do something about this. In the National Coal Board's proposals for the next 15 years, there are, in section 82 of the second technical appendix, some hopeful ideas expressed. The tenor of the whole section is that whereas in the past little effort has been made to clean water from collieries, much more would be done in the future. I suggest that it would be well worth while reversing the process and giving a licence where it is really necessary but not giving a carte blanche for every colliery for all time to do exactly what it likes about this matter.

Mr. Harold Davies: While I agree in the main with the Amendment, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), whether he would be prepared to put in certain safeguards which may be necessary in mining districts. We can see the effect of pollution by iron pyrites only too well in the hilly districts in North Staffordshire, where water used to be pumped willy-nilly. But there may be an occasion when there may not be time to appeal to the Minister to make a regulation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), with his technical knowledge of mining, will agree.
If there is a terrible accident, such as that which happened in Scotland, where there is flooding with slime running into the pit, then to save life and limb it might be necessary to pump water into the river immediately. We should be in a serious position if we inserted a Clause which made it an offence to do this to save life and limb. I should like to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite their point of view on an exceptional case of that kind.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), said that this Amendment reversed the procedure laid down in the Clause. The Clause says that water from a mine is not considered to be a polluter but that the Minister has the power to grant applications in regard to certain streams or parts of streams. The hon. Member's Amendment turns it the other way round. All the water is to be considered as polluting, and the Minister can make exceptions. Frankly, that alternative would lead to a good deal of unnecessary interference with the mining industry. It would also cost a very large sum of money, and very large volumes of water would have to be dealt with, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) knows.

Colonel Clarke: I take it, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that estimates have been made as to the amount of money involved. Can he tell me how much it would cost to make the settling ponds of which I spoke?

Mr. Lindgren: I have not got an actual figure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was generous enough, in view of his past association with the mining industry, to admit that under the National Coal Board

much greater attention is being paid to the purity of water and the prevention of pollution than was paid in the old days. He agreed that the declared intention of the National Coal Board was to take even more steps to prevent pollution. Surveys have taken place at various mines, and I am informed that the problem is serious in at least 100 mines which would be affected. The prospect of having to investigate each of these cases in detail, as the Minister would have to under this Amendment, is formidable.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is nothing in my Amendment to prevent the Minister, from the start, making an exempting order in respect of the whole 100 mines.

Mr. Lindgren: That may be a legal way, but it does not seem to me to be the right way to solve the problem. The Clause as it stands deals with the problem. Where there is bad pollution it gives the Minister the right to interfere, and where there are streams, or parts of streams, where the Minister wants to take action, he can take it under the Clause. To exclude all cases and then to give an exemption from the exclusion, seems to be a rather complicated method.
I am sure that everyone agrees with the intention of the Clause. It is far better for the river boards, in conjunction with the National Coal Board and the mining officials of certain areas, to discuss the problems in relation to certain rivers. There is the protection of Clause 2 (3) if the river board, after such consultation, consider that the position is no longer reasonable. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, South, will withdraw his Amendment, and accept the assurance that the river boards and the National Coal Board intend to attempt to deal with this matter fully.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was a little disappointed at the hon. Gentleman's attitude. Before I come to that, let me reply to the request from the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) that we should clear up the situation. He asked what was our attitude towards action taken, as inevitably might happen, in emergency circumstances in respect of some colliery disaster, or even some threatened disaster. I should say for myself, and I think my hon. Friends will agree, that we should be only too willing to have words inserted to the effect that:


nothing in this Clause shall interfere with the right and the duty of the National Coal Board to take any emergency action necessary for the safeguarding of life and limb.
I am sure that that position needs to be safeguarded and that we should all agree to the insertion of words to that effect.
To deal with the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that he appreciates the enormous blanket exemption which is being given by this subsection. It provides:
the said subsection shall not…penalise the discharge of water raised or drained from a mine into any specified stream or part of a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from the mine.
That is a blanket exemption, and nobody in the House can criticise the action of the Minister on that, but, if we turn it round and say that the Minister may give exemptions, it is open to any others to inquire of the Minister why he has given these exemptions, to criticise him and to raise the matter in the House.
8.0 p.m.
The very fact that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there are something like 100 of these cases—and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. H. Davies) has pleaded most eloquently the cause of the rivers which in the past have been polluted or destroyed by such action—shows the need of some such provision. The Parliamentary Secretary confirmed the statement of the hon. Member for Leek when he said that in 100 cases there is action of this kind going on now. I quite agree that we cannot put all these things straight in a moment, but we ought to bring the pressure of this House to bear on this difficulty.
I remember that, in the old days, it was very difficult to get the collieries to pay any attention to the burning of tips, or "bings" as we call them in Scotland, but, when there was a danger of air-raids and a civil defence scheme was in operation, it was astonishing to find how frequently fires which had been burning for half a century were extinguished with great promptitude. It proved that it was not impossible to deal with these things, because there was the power of pressure.
Here, we ask that the power of pressure should be entrusted in the House. The Minister will have the whole weight of those who are desirous of carrying on industry to support him, and, in particular, the whole weight of hon. Members who

represent mining areas, more particularly those where colliery workings may be prejudiced by a careless, harsh or unduly rapid use of these powers. Very often, the miners themselves, who have to live in these surroundings and have to walk along the banks of these streams, will be only too willing to see pressure brought to bear in order that the streams should be cleared up. Why should a miner never see a pure stream unless he goes on a coach tour somewhere else?

Mr. Harold Davies: They are the best fishermen.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: They are, indeed, as we all know, and they go great distances in order to indulge in that sport.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has fully appreciated the weight which would normally attach to the acceptance of a provision such as we have in mind here in a declaration of its interest by this House and the acceptance of that declaration by the Minister. I beg him to think again. I do not think that, in this position, I could counsel my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
I beg the Minister to see whether he cannot, at any rate, give an undertaking that he will bring this discussion to the notice of his right hon. Friend, and that, if possible, in another place, it may be that some form of words could be agreed upon between us. It is not a small thing. In 100 cases, by the Parliamentary Secretary's own statement, this pollution is going on now, and we propose to give a statutory exemption which will remove it from the provisions of this Bill. I do not think the House should accept that.

Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid I could not give the undertaking for which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks. We have the mining industry going on at the present time, and we simply cannot stop it. After all, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that, if we reversed the process, in fact, we would immediately have to give exemption to industry, as it is at the moment.
We feel that it is much more reasonable to deal with the matter as the Clause is drafted at present, because, in fact, we have a degree of intention already shown. We have a declared intention on


the part of the boards, and they are doing their very best to reduce the pollution wherever it exists. Surely, it is far better that the river boards, with their knowledge of their local streams and the circumstances of the area, and in consultation with the area officers of the National Coal Board, should deal with this matter in relation to the problems as they exist in each area, rather than that we in this House should make an immediate declaration of pollution and the requirements in regard to it.
We feel that the Clause is better as it is drafted, and, while I will bring the discussion to the attention of my right hon. Friend when he returns, or through the medium of HANSARD tomorrow, I feel that, in the light of the circumstances, it would be rather misleading the House if I led it to believe that it would be an easy matter, or a probable development, that in another place we might introduce another Amendment which would carry out the effect and intention of the Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for Hendon, South.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I had felt unwilling to withdraw my Amendment without some undertaking from the Government. It is important, and it makes a very large hole in the principle of the Bill. It would mean that anyone who opened a mine would be able to infringe the whole principle of the Bill.
My hon. Friend reminds me that the force of the Parliamentary Secretary's objection is considerably diminished when we remember that in Scotland they can do exactly what we are now pressing for. There, the authorities have not found it necessary to take the line which the Government appear to be taking here. I do not feel that the Government have considered this matter as carefully and as fully as they should, having regard to the principle involved, and there is an important principle involved here. If the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to say that further consideration will be given to the matter in the light of this discussion—I do not ask him to pledge himself—I should not wish to press the matter.

Mr. Lindgren: New mines would come under the provisions of the Water Act, and would require the Minister's permis-

sion. In regard to the general principle, and particularly as regards what is impracticable here while being practicable in Scotland, I will look into that point, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend, and report back to the House.

Mr. Harold Davies: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word or two in support of the contention of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). While I would not be prepared to divide the House, I do hope that the Minister will bear in mind that a very important principle is at stake here. On that point, I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Hendon, South, that the Bill might be undermined if the House does not draw attention to the possibilities.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his understanding of these considerations, will realise that there is no party difference here, but that both sides of the House are seeking the best possible means in mining districts of keeping the rivers clean and as free from pollution as possible.

Mr. Lindgren: That is so, and that is accepted.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On the understanding that the Government will consider this matter further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert "any underground part of."
The Amendment follows discussions in Committee, and it carries out an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave during the Committee stage. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who asked whether opencast workings or iron workings were exempt. Of course, they are included as normal industrial effluents, and this Amendment simply affects the others.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has found it possible to move this Amendment. Here again, I do not wish to be unreasonable; if there were any surface which had to be unwatered to prevent danger to life, as in the case of the Scottish disaster, I certainly should not make it a condition


that the water would have to come from underground. If some surface flooding had taken place which was liable to burst through into the workings and endanger life, I should be only too willing to extend the utmost possible latitude to those responsible for dealing with it. If that were necessary in order to provide a safeguard, I am sure the House would agree. Meanwhile, in general, the water which is so shed into the stream is to be underground water.
I think this reinforces the case of the Parliamentary Secretary in bringing to the notice of his right hon. Gentleman the subject we were discussing earlier. Sometimes an accumulation of water in opencast workings is just as important from the point of view of getting coal as an accumulation of water in underground workings. Yet the Minister is willing to concede the point against it in the case of overground water. I trust he will find it possible to concede the point in the case of underground water.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "the mine," and to insert "underground." This is consequential upon a previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(6) The National Coal Board and the proprietors of any mine or quarry shall from time to time make available to any river board which in their opinion is likely to be affected, copies of such plans and other information relating to proposed future workings, including in particular any plans for the sinking of any new shaft, as it may be reasonable or necessary for the river board to have; and any question as to what is reasonable or necessary for the purposes of this subsection shall be determined by the Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that during the Committee stage, on 6th February, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) moved an Amendment to the original Bill, in page 2, line 35, to insert:
The National Coal Board and the proprietors of any mine or quarry shall not sink any new shaft unless they have given the river board notice of their intention to do so not less than four weeks beforehand (or such less period as the river board may agree to).
This is a matter of principle, because the opening of a new shaft may create a considerable

number of changes in a water table which will affect the river boards. At the end of a short debate on that occasion, the Minister said:
I am perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion made and let my advisers consult with the hon. Members who are interested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February, 1951; c. 43–46.]
This Amendment is moved with a view to discovering what were the results of those consultations between the Minister, his advisers and hon. Members who are interested. I do not think one can exaggerate the importance of full notice being given to river boards of any change which may take place in the conditions of a river as a result of workings by the National Coal Board. Water travels in an extraordinary way underground, and often tapping in one place has effects quite a long way away. I had an instance of that the other day when I was in Holland. The draining of part of the Zuyder Zee had to be stopped because it was disturbing the foundations of Amsterdam. An effect of draining off the water was to produce subsidence of the buildings.
8.15 p.m.
I think that this is a reasonable Amendment. The House will see in line 4 the words that such plans and information should be supplied
…as it may be reasonable or necessary for the river board to have; and any question as to what is reasonable or necessary…shall be determined by the Minister.
He has the last word. I hope, therefore, that this—if I may so term it—exploratory Amendment may produce a favourable response.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should acknowledge that we did have a conference with the hon. Gentleman's advisers, and we were then informed that this was normal practice, and that such information would be passed. However, I think it is desirable that we should get that on the records of the House—that it is, in fact, the normal practice—so that we can have an official assurance that this will be done. The Report of the Committee on Mining Subsidence of March, 1949, called attention to the need to see that this really does happen. This is what it says:
The National Coal Board should accept the obligation to supply to every Planning Authority and every Catchment Board"—


that is now every river board—
likely to be affected copies of plans showing in relation to surface features all relevant existing and proposed future workings with dates so far as these can be foreseen. These plans should be brought up to date at intervals of not less than six months.
I think that that does give point to the need for this, and I think we should like an assurance that this really does happen. I think that there is a little bit of doubt sometimes as to whether it really does happen. It has not always happened as smoothly in the past as it should have, and as smoothly as it will do in the future as a result of the assurance that, I hope, the hon. Gentleman is going to give us.

Mr. Lindgren: I am only too happy to be able on this occasion to give the assurance which Members require. River boards, in common with anyone else, have the right to get copies of coal workings, and obtain—on payment of such fees, of course, as are prescribed—the proposals of the Coal Board in regard to its intentions. It is equally true that no new proposal may be made without the Ministry of Local Government and Planning knowing about it well before the decision to develop is taken. That is a function and duty; and I give the assurance that it will be done—that in so far as our Ministry is concerned they will themselves bring to the notice of the river boards any intentions to develop as come to their notice—as they all must do—in regard to developments in the areas of the various planning authorities.

Mr. Nugent: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make this quite clear? He did say that the river boards could have these plans on payment of fees. The point I want to get clear is this. Do we understand that there is an obligation on the Coal Board to see that the river boards and local authorities concerned do, in fact, receive these plans, or do they only get them if they ask for them and pay fees? Because if that is the case it is just not enough.

Mr. Lindgren: For the planning authorities, notice of the plans is already there. It is true that river boards have to ask for them and pay the fees for the plans. However, I will make certain about that and let the hon. Gentleman know. The river boards can be certain of obtaining

the knowledge from the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. Every possible consultation is encouraged with the National Coal Board, the planning authorities and others concerned in the area. I can assure both hon. Members that the fullest consultation takes place, and that any diversion of water or interference with the flow of water is well known beforehand. On the basis of that assurance, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Harold Davies: I intervene as one who had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Mining Subsidence. This was a very important issue, and we spent a long time with riparian owners, agricultural interests, canal interests, and others, discussing the possibility of the National Coal Board embarking on development which might alter the course and flow of a stream and thereby result in pollution. As I understand it, there is now a statutory obligation upon the Coal Board to inform the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, but I should like there to be an obligation on the Ministry to pass on this information direct to the river boards.
One of our problems in dealing with mining subsidence was not to overload the National Coal Board with masses of paper obligations and the filling in of innumerable forms. If the Minister gave the House an assurance that the Ministry will take upon themselves the obligation to pass on that information to the river boards, I wonder whether that would satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, because that would not overload the Coal Board with paper work—which is now growing anyway—in connection with development plans.

Mr. Lindgren: I thought I had made that clear. It was the intention of my last intervention to show that there is an obligation to notify us, and it is then our obligation to notify river boards.

Colonel Clarke: I understand that the National Coal Board has a statutory obligation to give to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning any information relevant to sources and flow, and all other matters likely to affect river boards, and that the Ministry has, through the Minister, now made itself responsible for passing on that relevant


information to the river boards. With that assurance, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from "where" to "of," in line 8, and to insert:
a person is convicted of any such offence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was substantially a repetition or continuation.
At various stages of the Order Paper there are Amendments related to this, and I imagine we shall take them as consequential when they arise. During Committee there was much discussion on whether or not a discharge which went on day after day was really one continuing event or a series of events. Following on the discussions in Committee, we had the benefit of detailed discussions with members of the legal section, and I am informed that, where there is pollution over a period, a series of events has been committed, because while matter is discharged each day, it may not necessarily be the same as that discharged on other days, although it may have been considered identical with it.
In order to meet the wishes expressed in Committee, we have tabled this Amendment, the effect of which is to leave it open to the court to deal with a repetition or continuation of the previous offence by the imposition of a daily penalty. This is really an Amendment to obtain clarity in regard to the point raised in Committee as to whether or not the continuing of an offence day after day in regard to an effluent was a continuing offence or a series of different offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 12, leave out "five hundred pounds," and insert:
fifty pounds for every day on which the earlier offence has been so repeated or continued by him or five hundred pounds (whichever is the greater).

In line 14, leave out "one hundred pounds," and insert:
ten pounds for every such day or one hundred pounds (whichever is the greater)."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out from

"section," to the end of line 34, and to insert:
which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director manager secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Mr. Philips Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will it be in order to discuss the other Amendments dealing with this subject? I have two Amendments on the Order Paper; can these Amendments be discussed together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that would be for the convenience of the House. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) has down two Amendments which are linked with this one—those in lines 18 and 20.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This Amendment deals with the provisions in the Bill which caused a certain amount of discussion in Committee because they contain rather startling words. Subsection (7) states:
Where an offence punishable under this section has been committed by body corporate, any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate…shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent.…
Those may be called fairly strong measures. The Minister on that occasion said:
I am further informed that this subsection is really common form in recent Acts. In some dozen of Acts passed into law in the last few years, a provision of this sort has found a place, so that this is no innovation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 13th February, 1951; c. 83.]
8.30 p.m.
But we have now a more recent ruling of the Government on this matter and I trust it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to harmonise this Measure with the most recent ruling on the subject. In the case of the Bill dealing with sea fish, a somewhat similar provision was in the Measure, but it was moved out by no less a person than the Lord Chancellor in another place. That was on 26th April and this House was asked to agree with the Amendment on the motion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I could scarcely appeal to higher authorities or to those who carry


more weight with the Government. The words which I suggest should be inserted here are exactly those words which were inserted in another place, and recommended to the House by one of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Dalton: I must apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have only just returned to the House and therefore I am not completely au fait at this moment with the course of the debate. I was advised when we discussed this in Committee upstairs that this was a common form procedure, and without notice I am not able to reconcile it with or place it alongside his reference to the Lord Chancellor in another place. In view of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the Lord Chancellor having cited this on the White Fish Bill, would he allow me to look into it, as I do not think it fair either to him or the House to give a snap answer? We could then, if necessary, adjust it in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should be most willing to do that. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is giving an undertaking that he will try to harmonise this and will, if possible, introduce an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Dalton: I would not put it quite as high as that. I would undertake to inquire into the other formula and see whether that other formula is preferable. I will see whether there is any reason why we should differentiate between the one Bill and the other. It may be that there is a reason which I do not know; and it may be there is no reason.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure we do not wish the Minister to give a snap answer. He is speaking with the whole responsibility of the Government and we must make allowances for that; but he will understand that I am withdrawing on a gentleman's agreement that he will do his best to see why the provision was drawn as it was drawn and whether it is possible to put the sea fish on all fours—if one may use such an expression about fish—with the river fish. In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out from "circumstances," to the end of line 28.

The omission of the words referred to is to make way for a later Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(8) Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of the last foregoing subsection as having at the time of its commission been a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate within the meaning of that subsection (or been purporting to act in any such capacity), and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was substantially a repetition or continuation of an earlier offence by the body corporate after it had been convicted of the earlier offence (whether under this Act or otherwise), he shall be liable to the same penalties as the body corporate under the proviso to subsection (6) of this section, including the imprisonment to which it would be liable if a natural person:
Provided that—

(a) he shall not be so liable if he shows that at the time of the first-mentioned offence he did not know of the body corporate's conviction for the earlier offence and that at the time of the earlier offence he was not acting or purporting to act in any such capacity; and
(b) in determining the maximum amount of any fine to which he is so liable any repetition or continuation of the earlier offence by the body corporate shall be disregarded if he shows either—

(i) that at the time when the repetition or continuation occurred he was not acting or purporting to act in any such capacity; or
(ii) that the repetition or continuation occurred without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent its occurrence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in any such capacity in which he was acting or purporting to act and to all the circumstances.

This Amendment is consequential. It has been drafted to give effect to a promise made by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) in Committee.

Mr. Nugent: I much appreciate the attempt made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman to meet the point which I made in Committee. This Amendment does so in the terms of the Bill as originally drafted. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be consequential Amendments. Subject to that, I thank the Ministers very much.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(PREVENTION AND MAKING GOOD OF DEFAULTS UNDER S. 2.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, after "area," to insert:
(whether a new contravention or a repetition or continuation of one already occurred or occurring).
In Committee, my right hon. Friend promised to re-examine Clause 3 (1) in order to make sure that river boards were able to take action under it and apply for a court order, not only to prevent apprehended future pollution but to regulate discharges which had polluted or were polluting a stream. The Amendment is designed to fulfil that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 19, and to insert:
(2) For the purposes of the proviso to subsection (6) and of subsection (8) of the last foregoing section, an order made against a person under subsection (1) of this section shall be treated as a conviction of an offence punishable under that section, and any contravention by him of subsection (1) of that section shown to have been, or to have been wholly or partly due to, a contravention of or failure to comply with the order shall be treated as a repetition or continuation of that offence by him.
This is a drafting Amendment, and is consequential upon an Amendment that we have already agreed to.

Mr. Nugent: Here again there may be consequential Amendments. Could it be accepted subject to that consideration?

Mr. Lindgren: That is, of course accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(5) A river board shall, at the request of any person appearing to them to be interested in any land, and at his expense, furnish him or such other person as may be specified in the request with such particulars as may be so specified of any orders made under subsection (1) of this section with respect to any stream in their area, being orders about any use or proposed use of that land or otherwise material to its use.
In Committee an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) to provide that a court order obtained to restrain pollution from a particular riparian owner's premises, should be registered as a local land charge. We

were not in favour of that. We pointed out that the Land Charges Register is already overburdened with entries for which it was not originally intended, and that the principal effect of registration would be to make a purchaser of those premises, if he were guilty of substantially the same offence as contemplated in the order, liable for the higher penalties applicable to a repeated offence. We did not think that that was quite fair.
We did not like my hon. Friend's Amendment, but the Committee were anxious that something should be done on this point and this Amendment seeks to meet their wishes. It is designed to secure that persons with a legal interest in riparian land may find out whether court orders have been made in respect of either their own premises, or others abutting on any stream in the area, which might affect the way in which they may wish to use their property. They will be secure by having access to the register. The Amendment imposes on river boards, who are the authorities responsible, the duty of keeping available details of court orders relating to pollution. We do not want to put an impossible burden on the authorities, and therefore the river boards are to be responsible for supplying only such information as they are asked to provide and they are also to be entitled to charge for the work entailed.

Mr. Philips Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for going some way towards meeting the Amendment which I put down in Committee, but his Amendment only partially meets my point. The difficulty is that the purchasers of land on the bank of a river, or their solicitors, may not know about this new procedure, whereas my proposal was that these things should be automatically registered with the local authority under the Land Charges Act so that any solicitor dealing with the purchase of land would automatically go to the local authority to get the information. I still maintain that that is the better way, but maybe my right hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Dalton: They can still go to the local authority under this provision.

Mr. Philips Price: Yes, but these things will not be registered with the local authority under the Land Charges Act. If that is not possible owing to complications in administration, this Amendment certainly


goes some way towards meeting me, and I am thankful to my right hon. Friend for that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(CLEANSING BED OF STREAM, CUTTING VEGETATION, ETC.)

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from "he," to the second "or," in line 12, and to insert:
cleanses any part of the channel or bed of a stream from a deposit accumulated by reason of any dam, weir, or sluice holding back the water of the stream, and does so by causing the deposit to be carried away in suspension in the water of the stream.
This is a drafting Amendment. The words which are to be omitted were put into the Bill during the Committee stage as the result of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I said that I accepted the Amendment in principle but that we should have to re-examine the words. I have done that, and the revised wording does not alter the sense of the subsection. I believe that the Amendment gives the hon. Member for Devizes what he wanted.
The Amendment aims at preventing as far as possible pollution arising from the turning into a stream of any deposit accumulated behind any dam, weir or sluice. This is where we must have a limited number of words in order to give the maximum effect. If we use more than a limited number of words we are likely to get less than the maximum effect. These three words are used in the place of the hon. Member's original proposal. The words that he wanted to use were mill, river dam, weir, impound or waterlodge. The three monosyllables, dam, weir and sluice, give the full meaning, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out "and," and to insert "or."
This is an Amendment to a new Clause inserted in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was prepared to accept such an Amendment. It was not possible to move it because it would have involved a second manuscript Amendment, and the Chairman of the Committee thought it had better come at

a later stage. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept it now, I need not say anything further.

Mr. Dalton: I should like to consider it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps in those circumstances I had better justify the Amendment. The relevant words in the Bill are that subject to this Act a person commits an offence punishable under this Clause if, by his wilful default and without the consent of the River Board, he cuts vegetation and leaves it in the stream.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) pointed out in the course of the debate that in his present constituency, and in my old constituency, there were many circumstances in which individuals cut vegetation which gets carried away in a stream without any default on the part of the person cutting the vegetation and without his having any very obvious obligation to seek permission to leave the vegetation where it may be carried away. The circumstances are the Wash lands of East Anglia which are occasionally flooded over very large areas, and where substantial quantities of vegetation may need to be cut and left about from time to time.
If the Bill stands as at present drafted, a person seeking to bring himself outside the terms of this clause would have to show not only that it was without his wilful default that the vegetation got into the stream, but also that he had obtained the consent of the river board to let it get into the stream. I do not think that can really be the intention of the Government. It is quite clear that these two expressions are alternative to one another; that where a person innocently allows vegetation to get into the stream he should not also be required to get consent.
My Amendment merely makes the two terms disjunctive and alternative. In those circumstances, a person will be guilty of an offence if he has either allowed the vegetation to get into the stream by wilful default, or if he has not obtained the permission of the authority.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving his Amendment, because it gives an opportunity to the Minister to elaborate a little on the correspondence which he and I have been having on this very subject. I think that he has overlooked the fact that in these Washlands flooding is often done deliberately in order to ease the situation higher up the river, that no warning has to be given to the people concerned, whether they be farmers or osier growers, and it is quite conceivable that the flood comes down and washes away all the stacked osiers and that technically there might be an offence.
I think the Minister has covered the point in his correspondence where it would have been the obligation of the river board to let the man know that the flood was coming, but there is no obligation, nor has the man got to ask permission normally from the river board, or the old catchment board in days gone by, to carry out this trade. What I am most anxious to avoid is that anyone should be put in the position of having to ask the river board for permission to carry out his ordinary trade. That is the point to which I hope the Minister will reply.

Mr. Dalton: As I explained in Committee, I am quite sympathetic to the purpose of the Clause. The only question is the words which best achieve what we all have in mind. I undertook to look into the wording again and I have, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) says, had some correspondence with him about it. I am advised by my legal advisers that the Clause as it stands, without any Amendment, would meet the point which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.
As the Clause stands, before a person can be held to have committed an offence, he must have allowed a substantial quantity of osiers or cut-up root vegetation, or whatever it may be, to get into the river or stream by wilful default and without the consent of the river board. Wilful default has to be proved in order that he can be proceeded against. I am advised that if the vegetation is carried downstream without the consent of the river board, wilful default must still be proved. There would seem, therefore, to be no danger that an osier cutter, or any other person following a similar occupation,

would be prosecuted if he had no reasonable grounds for thinking that his osiers would be washed away.
The argument that has been put to me, and which seems reasonable, is that if we accept the Amendment we make the position of the osier grower, not safer, but more insecure, in the face of the law. If we were to insert the word "or" instead of "and," the consent of the river board would be an alternative to wilful default; and if that consent were not obtained, it would not be necessary to prove wilful default and, therefore, the man might be caught.
Being, as I have said, anxious to assist these people, I think that on reflection it appears that they are very much safer with the Clause as it is, and that their position would be rendered more precarious if we adopted the Amendment. I suggest, therefore, to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who moved the Amendment, and to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely that it would be better if we left well alone.

Mr. Mitchison: All I wish to observe is that this illustrates the perils of the Chancery Bar attempting to amend criminal legislation. This Amendment is, obviously, wrong.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Without in any way conceding to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I see the force of what the Minister has said. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(2) Paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection shall not apply to anything done in the exercise of statutory powers conferred by or under any enactment referring to land drainage, flood prevention or navigation.
During the Committee stage the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) raised this matter, somewhat resembling the Amendment we have now tabled, framed with a particular reference to internal drainage boards, to which the hon. Member referred earlier today. He said that the drainage boards have certain statutory duties, which is quite true, requiring them to undertake dredging and


other work in order to keep watercourses clear.
I am advised, and it seems common sense, that one cannot work under-water without stirring up some mud which will be carried away with the stream. We must bear that in mind when drafting this legislation. That would mean that the drainage boards would be required to obtain the prior consent of the river boards before carrying out duties which have been put upon them by Parliament.
I have re-examined the whole thing, and the Amendment is designed to preserve unchanged the position of both the drainage boards and the navigation authorities, who have statutory powers to cleanse the streams. We propose to keep them in the same position as they are in now and to exempt them from the need to obtain the river board's consent for such work, which, I think, was what the hon. Member had in mind.

Mr. Turton: I rise to thank the Minister for putting down an Amendment which completely meets the point made by the Association of Drainage Authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(BYE-LAWS.)

Mr. Hargreaves: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert:
and for this purpose different standards may be prescribed in reference to different classes of effluent entering the stream.
This Clause deals with the prescription of standards by river boards, and the purpose of the Amendment is to make clear that it is open to the river boards to maintain different standards in reference to different classes of effluent. For the purposes of illustration I will deal with the position as it affects local authorities and the need for applying different standards to what might appear to be the same kind of effluent.
The sewage works of the local authority which has been quoted so often today, Carlisle, deal with sewage which later becomes effluent by means of screens, sedimentation tanks, filters and so on, and after that process of treatment at the sewage works the effluent reaches an outfall into the River Eden. The treatment is laid down by negotiation and agreement between the Ministry of Health and the local authority, and the principle of

the handling of domestic sewage in these works has been accepted by the Ministry.
But, when dealing with the very much greater volume of storm water, there is not the need in the view of the Ministry of Health for this storm water to receive the same treatment by means of screens, tanks, filters and so on at the sewage works. It is dealt with through screens and settling tanks, and it then flows through a separate outfall into the river. Quite obviously, there is a need for dealing with two outfalls into the river from the same sewage works and with the effluent from the sewage works by two quite different standards.
There is an obvious need for a recognition on the part of the river boards that these two outfalls into the River Eden require a different test, a different standard and, possibly, a different bylaw, although they enter the stream at points quite near to each other.
Although the effluents leave the works after the same industrial processes, they may reach a millrace or a tributary river in widely different states, and there ought to be flexibility in this Clause to permit the river boards to apply different standards to deal with effluents of this kind. I recognise, and both sides of the House will recognise, that the river boards will attempt to set very high standards, and we want them to do that, and endeavour, by the influence of experts, to induce people using the rivers to conform to these high standards over a period of time. That necessitates the incorporation in the Clause of the flexibility which in my view is provided by this Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I beg to second the Amendment.
I second the Amendment largely for the purpose of extracting from the Minister the admission that his legal advisers do not regard the Amendment as necessary to attain the object which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) desires. I see the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) here, the advantage of whose views about this we might have if the Minister should take another view to that which I have indicated.

Colonel Clarke: On rather less subtle grounds I rise to express the hope that the Amendment will be resisted. It appears


to be based on the experience of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) in connection with his own local sewerage works on the edge of Carlisle. Without wishing in any way to criticise them, I suggest that that is not very good ground on which to base legislation because those works were visited by Mr. Turing on 24th October, 1946. I have in my hand his report. He says:
The purification is of a rather old-fashioned type…
He goes on to say:
The works were quite obviously overloaded, the effluent, which was cloudy and inclined to smell, was being allowed to flow into the river with an oxygen demand of four or five parts per 100,000…
I would add that he did not altogether blame them. He said it was that, in combination with the fact that now in close proximity is a new electric power plant which has no cooling powers and which is taking a good deal of water out of the river and raising its temperature, which is making the pollution a serious matter. That is dealt with by a Clause in this Bill, by which a river board has powers to lay down standards which may be for long or short reaches of river. The drafting of the Clause gives the river boards the widest possible power and the Amendment would not only be redundant but might spoil the powers which are already accorded.

Mr. Dalton: This Amendment is not necessary, as has already been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster). The power is there, and I suggest that my hon. Friend need not press his Amendment.

Mr. Hargreaves: I hesitated to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) because I enjoyed what he said quite well. But it should be made clear that his reference to 1946 is a little out of date. I would refer him to the works of reconstruction in that particular case. But here we are concerned with the general position and what is generally accepted by the Ministry of Health as a standard. I am not making a case for one local authority only. If, as the Minister indicates, the point is adequately covered, however, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out from the second "of," to the end of line 33, and to insert:
other things or the putting into the stream of litter or other objectionable matter, whether poisonous, noxious or polluting or not;
This Amendment does two things. It alters slightly the wording of Clause 5 (1, b), which gives the river boards power to make bylaws prohibiting or regulating the washing or cleansing of animals or articles in streams. We had some discussion on this in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), took a leading part. This is a drafting Amendment. River boards are not restricted in any particular category, article or thing to be washed or cleansed in the stream. They have power to deal with all objects, and it extends the powers of the river boards to prevent streams from being used for the depositing of junk and litter—which I think all of us will welcome—even if it is not itself polluting.

Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman's intention is laudable, but the actual wording of this Amendment will possibly give rise to some alarm. This is the first time that we have seen the word "objectionable" in the Bill. We have discussed at length the meaning of various other words, but the introduction of the word "objectionable" opens completely new vistas. What can be objectionable? There are all kinds of things. I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman has struck the right line here. I will not suggest anything in the political sphere to which I might object, because that might be dangerous, but I was thinking of the depositing of one's political opponent in a stream. Would that amount to an offence in this connection?
In all seriousness, the Amendment as drafted might mean absolutely anything. What we really need from the Minister is some explanation, or perhaps it would be sufficient if he gave us an assurance that when he considers the standards and the bylaws to be proposed by the river boards, which he must confirm before they become operative, he will see that whatever the river boards propose as objectionable is, in fact, reasonable, and is not tinged by any local prejudice or does not interfere with anyone for whom they do not particularly care, but that the bylaws are drawn in every way in a reasonable manner. If we could have


such an assurance, it would be of great assistance.
Obviously we want to prevent litter and junk from being put in a river which in itself is not polluted, and we want to deal with the whole question of solids. One solid in one river might not be objectionable, but it might be objectionable in another, which is the reason it is right to have this provision flexible. If the Minister will give us an assurance that he will watch closely to see what is, in fact, considered by the river boards to be objectionable, he may meet the situation.

Mr. Dalton: I will give that assurance if it is desired. We are assuming that the river boards are going to be reasonable. I would hope, on the one hand, that they will make use of this power, for we want to deal with this kind of material; but, on the other hand, we want the powers to be used reasonably. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) says, the bylaws will come up for Ministerial approval, and it would certainly be my duty, or the duty of any successor of mine, to look carefully at any bylaws brought forward under this provision.

Mr. Philips Price: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for this Amendment, which entirely meets the point that I raised in Committee. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) said, the word "objectionable" could be given a considerably wide interpretation. I think one has to leave it to common sense and to the river boards to draft their bylaws in a reasonable way. They will be seen by my right hon. Friend, and if there are any abuses, or if they go too far, he can review them. I think that it is best to leave the matter like that. I am very glad that it is possible to cover many things which the Bill as previously drafted did not cover. I think my right hon. Friend has met the demand very satisfactorily.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the extent to which he has widened the power of the river boards to make bylaws. We all agree that it is desirable that there should be bylaws to prevent people from throwing litter, old tins and

objects of that kind into rivers. But the right hon. Gentleman goes much further than that. It is difficult to appreciate what the Minister has in mind when he uses the words, "objectionable matter." Apparently the matter comprised in the right hon. Gentleman's description is matter which is neither poisonous, noxious or polluting. Then what is it?

Mr. Kinley: It is objectionable.

Mr. Hutchinson: Who is it who objects to it?

Mr. Dalton: The river board.

Mr. Hutchinson: The river board can make a bylaw preventing any matter from being put into the river. They can make a bylaw preventing a boat from being put into the river if they think that objectionable. It is all very well to say that the river board will be able to produce some form of words which describes exactly what they mean by the word "objectionable." If it is possible to do that, the right hon. Gentleman ought to do it now and put it into the Bill instead of leaving it to the river boards to try to make up their minds later on what objects they regard as objectionable and what objects they do not regard as objectionable.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that he has thrown the scope of this Clause wide open. The river boards will be able to make any bylaws they like. They will be able to say, "We object to a boat being put into the river; therefore, that is objectionable and we are entitled to make a bylaw prohibiting it being put into the river." I am sure that that is not what the House intends. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he look at this question again and see whether he cannot devise some form of words which will give some indication to the river boards as to what classes of matter or material they may reasonably prohibit being put into the river.

Mr. Mitchison: May we have a little horse-sense in these proceedings? I fail entirely to see how one can get a more reasonable, more appropriate and more suitable word than the word "objectionable." As for the idea that this Bill should contain a definition of that word, I deprecate it. Mankind is indeed ingenious


in discovering new forms of the objectionable. To throw coffins or undertaker's cerements into a river would no doubt have been permissible long ago. To throw newspapers into the river would be a comparatively recent development. I think that we can trust the Minister to see that no undue discrimination is made between the "Daily Telegraph," on the one hand, and the "Daily Worker," on the other, and that either all or no newspapers are prohibited.
Tins are one of the most recent inventions of mankind, but are we to say that, in the course of the development of our industrial civilisation, mankind will not develop other things which may most properly, when their immediate use is satisfied, be flung into the rivers, either to be objectionable or not objectionable to the river boards and to the Ministers who may be called upon in the future to decide upon this weighty matter?

9.15 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If I may, to some extent, come to the rescue of the right hon. Gentleman, I think his use of the word "objectionable" is not so objectionable as all that, because of a rule which is known on the common law side of the Bar as the ejusdem generis rule, according to which a matter would be objectionable in the same sort of way. If that is not the meaning of it, I hope he will have some necessary alteration made at a later stage.
If he accepts the ejusdem generis rule, may I call his attention to the fact that the first two words would now prevent the washing of animals or "other things," and the rule there would mean other things like animals, and would therefore exclude motorcars and underwear, at all events, if the underwear remained vegetable and not animal. However, I may be stretching it a little far. The words "other things" in that context will, if anything, rather narrow the effect of the Bill, and none of us really wishes to see the Bill narrowed, but, with the possible exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), wish to see its power widened.
I support the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the latter part of the Amendment, subject to any alteration which may be necessary, but in the earlier part of the Amendment I hope he will have that

rather narrow expression "other things," in that context, taken out and some words inserted which will make it perfectly clear that the washing of anything whatsoever in a river can be made prima facie, an offence.

Mr. Turton: I think the right hon. Gentleman got into this difficulty because he refused to take the advice of the Hobday Report on this matter. The Hobday Report gave the House certain advice, and this present subsection (1, b) as drafted is quite inoperable. The Report recommended that there should be a universal law that no one should put solids into a river, with three groups of safeguards. This is the law already in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Essex and Surrey, and I cannot for the life of me see why this House does not accept the recommendations of the Hobday Report on this matter, but instead is proceeding on the Minister's suggestion to do this by varying bylaws from river to river.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider paragraphs 48 to 51 of the Hobday Report, which deal with this matter. After all, the Hobday Committee was an authoritative body, whose recommendations the Minister has followed in other directions, while in this one matter, to the great concern of the river boards, he has rejected their advice. I think he has placed himself in very great difficulty as a result, and I ask him to reconsider the matter and in another place to go back to the recommendations of the Hobday Committee.

Mr. Dalton: I thought this Amendment did meet the wishes of some of those hon. Members who spoke on this subject in Committee. The Hobday Report, of course, is quoted both ways very often in these discussions. It was a very able document, prepared by a body of very able people, but we have not followed it slavishly, because we did not think it would be right to do so. We have, as one hon. Member has said, followed it in many directions, but not in all.
As the hon. Gentleman says, in this respect the structure of the Bill is now some distance away from the Hobday Report, but I do not think that in itself is a thing to be deprecated, provided that this Amendment can stand up to the criticisms which have been made. Those criticisms are two. The hon. and learned


Member has confronted us with two conflicting applications of the doctrine, which I dimly remember from the far distant past, and I will get my legal advisers to look at the position. It looks as though "other things" is not right; I concede him that.
On the other hand, I am prepared to defend the use of the word "objectionable" and to defend giving this power to the river boards. They will be responsible people. Behind them will stand the guardian angel, my Ministry—whoever may be the Minister in office—with its legal and other advisers. If the boards were to do things as silly as the hon. Member thinks will be done, then they would be pulled up and their bylaws would not be approved. If their bylaws were approved, Questions would be asked in the House and somebody would move to reduce the salary of the responsible Minister. There are plenty of democratic safeguards against folly here.
On the other hand, I want to give the boards wide power. I do not want to draw up narrow lists of what is objectionable; I want them to exercise their grey matter on a thing like that. We can easily think of many examples, and the most obvious of many which have been mentioned is that of tin cans. There may be other things which some river boards will think objectionable and other river boards will not. I should like them to have a wide power, subject, as I have said, to the final control of my Department. If they should do something which is obviously nonsensical or unjust, there would be power to deal with it.
I ask the House to accept the Amendment on the understanding that I will look again at the first part of the wording—"other things or." If we found that that could be improved, as possibly it could, I should promote an Amendment in another place. I should, however, like to stick to "objectionable."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(d) for regulating the siting and construction of storm overflows of drains or sewers carrying both sewage effluent and surface water and the mode of discharge of sewage therefrom.
This Amendment follows other Amendments concerning storm water overflows,

such as that moved by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), and it seeks to ensure that storm water shall be treated separately, but it also ensures that local authorities shall know exactly where they stand by having by-laws prescribed with regard to the apparatus and the construction of these storm overflows. I think all local authorities are in favour of it. We had some discussion on the point in Committee and the Minister promised to look into it again. On that occasion the wording was perhaps not good, and I believe the wording in this Amendment is much more precise and will accomplish the purpose which I believe was generally accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Odey: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason. Frequently a position arises like that in my constituency where the outflow from the sewerage works can be discharged either into a canal, such as Beverley Beck, or into a river, like the River Hull. It is very desirable that the river board should have this matter within their purview when they are drawing up their bylaws. As my hon. Friend has said, it is most desirable that the local authorities should know exactly where they stand in this matter.
The mode of discharge also arises in connection with this Amendment. If I may take the House back to the position in my constituency, the River Hull is a tidal river and it is most important that this effluent should be discharged when the tide is going out and not when the tide is coming in. I am sure that a similar position arises in many places in the country. The mode of discharge is, therefore, also an important factor. This is surely a matter which should be brought within the purview of the river boards. I very much hope that for these reasons this Amendment will commend itself to the Minister.

Dr. Stross: I am not certain about the effects of this Amendment. May I put a case, so that the Minister may advise me? There are types of sewage effluents which, of course, are utterly pure, and which are used for industrial purposes. In my own area, for example, out of a total of 14 million gallons of water used in the whole of the city in a day, we are


able in part of our works, which are modern and up to date, to reserve 8 million or 9 million for re-sale, and which must be available for industrial purposes. Indeed, our industries could not carry on without it. However, we rob the stream, and what I want to know is whether this Amendment would give power to a board to say, "No, you must not use this water for industrial purposes. You must put it back into the stream. We know that it is a sewage effluent, but it is a very desirable effluent for any good stream." That would be very embarrassing to us indeed.

Mr. Dalton: I think I must be careful here not to confuse the functions of public bodies. I quite agree that there should be consultation between the local authorities and the river boards, but I think that it is giving the river boards something not very convenient for them to hold, and not very convenient for the local authorities that they should hold, if we authorise river boards to make bylaws governing the structure of the arrangements of local authorities' sewerage works. It would be a very difficult matter to make bylaws in this way for this purpose. These are engineering works and integral parts of the sewerage system, and it is primarily for the local authorities to see to these things, subject to some control by my Department.
I should have thought that the thing would best be handled by building up—I do not think we need put anything in the Bill about this—the practice of consultation between the river boards and the local authorities responsible for the sewerage work. That would meet the case which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). The Stoke-on-Trent Council would, no doubt, be in consultation with the river board. It is the easier, of course, as was pointed out earlier, because the river boards are going to consist as to a majority of representatives of the local authorities. To some extent, therefore, we shall have duplication of membership, and the whole thing can be easily adjusted. I do not myself feel we should give this particular power to the river boards, and I would hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

Mr. Colegate: I must confess that I am disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. After all, the people who are pressing this Amendment are the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said that the river boards are now to consist of a majority of representatives of local authorities, and that, therefore, we shall have community of interest. So far from one body trying to impose elaborate engineering regulations on another body, the bodies are to a large extent overlapping, and they would like this Amendment in order to give them clear knowledge exactly where they stand.
As for the question of making some elaborate technical regulations, I cannot at this time of night go into the whole matter, but I can say that there is passage after passage in the Bill by which there will have to be made bylaws which will have to be based on some engineering knowledge of sewerage and other matters. In these circumstances I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. It is not as though this were some chance Amendment. It has been carefully thought out and elaborated in discussions-amongst the associations of local authorities. I should have thought that in those circumstances it might have been accepted.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I am prepared to look at anything again, and I will check over what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I understand he tells us that this is what the local authorities want.

Mr. Colegate: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Dalton: I cannot say, but I will check it up. If that is so, it is to that extent an argument in favour of it. I would myself have thought that it was rather taking a power that should rest on the local authority and putting it on the river board. If the local authorities really want it, I should be a little less disinclined to accept the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me check the evidence.

Mr. Colegate: Certainly. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at it from that point of view, I willingly beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 9, and to insert:
and may provide for an effluent to be, or not to be, so treated according to the relation between the volume and rate of flow of the water of the stream and the volume and rate of discharge of the effluent.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to tidy up some words accepted in Committee. I think it was felt generally at that time that this was what was wanted to be done.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "or not to be."
The right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment replaces the words that were put down in Committee to give effect to the intention. Whilst we never expected our humble drafting to be finally accepted by the Department, we felt that it covered the intention rather better than the Minister's present proposed drafting. The introduction of the words "or not to be" is quite incomprehensible, unless the Minister's quest for erudition has led him back into the Shakespearian field, in which case it seems that he ought to have made some provision for the exclusion of the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
How can we imagine that this may provide for an effluent not to be so treated? This is purely a matter of drafting, but why are these words put in? It would be much clearer if they were simply left out. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has a specific reason for putting them in, I press him to let them be omitted.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I am advised that we need to keep open both alternatives, and that is why the words are put in. The point present to the minds of my advisers was that we not only wanted to say that a discharge under the bylaws shall be treated as polluting if its quantity is excessive, but we also wanted to say that a discharge shall be treated as not polluting if its quantity is trivial in relation to the volume and the rate of flow of the waters

of the stream. In other words, we want to have all the facts of the case—quantity, quality and so on—and according to the facts of the case, one would or would not declare that the effluent was so treated. Does not that make sense?

Mr. Nugent: I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his attempt to make sense of it, but it almost seems that he has come on to a point of principle. I am not sure that it would be right in principle, if an effluent was of a low quality, that because it was of small volume compared with the volume of the stream it could, therefore, be admitted. I think that would be quite wrong. If that is the intention of "or not to be," I think that those words ought to come out. If the Minister would undertake to have a further look at this matter to see if these words should not come out when the Bill goes to another place, I shall be content with that assurance and withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: Mr. Dalton indicated assent.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, after "prescribed," to insert:
for any stream or part of a stream.
This Amendment is linked with the Amendment which follows, and perhaps the two may be considered together. When we were discussing this matter in Committee, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), said that the wording was ambiguous. We have tried by this Amendment to remove the ambiguity. The doubt which arose in the minds of some hon. Members was whether the words "in so far as" at the beginning of the subsection had a qualitative or a geographical significance. They are definitely intended to have a qualitative significance and not a geographical significance, and I hope that the Amendment makes that clear by mentioning separately the geographical fact that bylaws may be prescribed for only part of the scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 12, at end, insert:
in relation to that stream or part."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Mr. Philips Price: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(4) Section fifteen of the Electricity Act, 1919, which enables an order to be made authorising the abstraction of water from any river, stream, &amp;c. (as amended by the Electricity Act, 1947) shall be read and have effect as if the following paragraph were added at the end of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section:

(e) no order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from a stream (as defined in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1950) unless it also provides for the return of the water in a condition and at a temperature which conform to the relevant standards prescribed by any byelaws made under section four of the said Act and for the time being in force in relation to the stream or part of the stream into which the water is to be returned.

I raised in Committee this matter about the possibility of conflict between the bylaws of the river boards and the orders made under the Electricity Act, 1919. My right hon. Friend, at that time, said that, in his opinion and according to his advice, there would be no conflict, and the bylaws of the river boards would override the orders of the Electricity Act. He also said that he would make a further inquiry. I am informed that it may be true that a bylaw of a river board overrides an order of the Electricity Act if it comes after the order. That is to say, if orders are given by the Electricity Authority that certain effluent may go into a river and the river board makes a bylaw after that, then that bylaw overrides the order. If it is the other way round, that may not be so.
I should like my right hon. Friend to be quite clear on this point. I know that the river boards are disturbed about this matter and would like to have it made clear. It would very seriously interfere with their powers if any condition of the Electricity Act in any way interfered with their control of the rivers.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I have looked into this as promised, and I do not think my hon. Friend need have any apprehension on the matter. There is a safeguard. Of course, the two Ministers responsible would as a matter of administrative routine consult, but I do not rest my answer on that. That is the commonsense administrative answer.
If they did not, I am advised that the Electricity Authority would have no right

or power to disregard an order or a bylaw. There are two standards laid down, and if perchance the two Ministers failed to consult, I am advised that it would be the duty of those concerned to comply with the more onerous of the two standards. If, for example, it was a question of the temperature of the discharge from a generating station, in that case it would have to conform with the lower of the two maximum temperatures. Similarly, with regard to any other case both standards would be binding, which is the same thing as saying that the more onerous of the two would in effect be binding.

Mr. Philips Price: In view of the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "any conditions." and to insert:
such conditions (if any) as may be.
This is primarily a drafting point. Clause 5 (5) provided, in the case of a person who cannot immediately conform with the standard prescribed by the bylaws, that the river board could grant a period of grace in order that the necessary steps might be taken. The river board may attach conditions to this concession, and often will. The point is that the drafting of the subsection as it appears in the Bill could result in the river board being made responsible for specifying the work to be done. We do not want that. The Amendment modifies the drafting in order to make it clear that there is no obligation on the river board to tell the person responsible for the discharge what remedial steps he should take. It is for him to do what is necessary.

Mr. Heald: The section states that:
Where, in consequence of the making of any bylaws…
a person proposes to take steps either
(a) to ensure that the effluent will comply with the standards prescribed by the bylaws; or
(b) to enable him to discontinue the discharge;
but those steps could not be taken or completed before the date when the bylaws come into force…
I suggest that the word "could" is a very undesirable word to use there because it is extremely ambiguous. Does


it mean they could not in fact physically be taken, or that there was a question of expense involved or some other reason which prevented the person from doing prudently what he might have done? This is one of those cases, I suggest, where Parliament should not agree to an enactment unless it is quite certain what it is doing. It is here using a word capable of at least three different interpretations, and before we agree to the Amendment I suggest that we should not only be told what is the correct interpretation, but that it should be made quite plain.

Mr. Dalton: I should have thought that "could" would there cover the various alternative valid reasons why this thing could not take place. If that is thought to be ambiguous, I will undertake to look at it again, but it did not occur to me that it was ambiguous. I imagined it might cover a number of reasons.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, subsection (5) will in some circumstances be the only escape, subject to what he is going to do about a local authority in difficulty. I suggest that the word "could" is very difficult in relation to expense. Whereas expense might be a governing factor I doubt whether his legal advisers would feel confident that expense should be taken into account in that context.

Mr. Dalton: I would welcome any suggestion—I do not mean now, across the Floor of the House—by either of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have drawn attention to this point. I certainly will have it looked at to see whether we can remove any ambiguity.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(7) Where (whether before or after the passing of this Act) an injunction or order has been granted or made for the protection or enforcement of any right over the water of a stream, the court granting or making the injunction or order shall, on the application of any interested person, make such variation of the injunction or order as may be necessary to secure that standards prescribed by any byelaws made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section

which are for the time being in force shall be conclusive for the purposes of the injunction or order on the question what is or is not poisonous, noxious or polluting.
This Amendment contains a not unimportant point. The House will recall that when we gave a Second Reading to the Bill, there was a provision in Clause 4 (5, a) to ensure that an authority which complied with the bylaws was, for the purposes of the law relating to nuisances, regarded as having fulfilled it. There was a great deal of criticism about the limitation that the Clause imposed upon the operation of the common law, in relation to the rights of the riparian owner. In the discussion in Committee, the Clause was assaulted many times by lawyers, anglers and others. The right hon. Gentleman at first resisted that attack, in part by offering as a compromise that he would retain the right to seek civil damages, but eventually he was pressed to remove the Clause and the subsections which involved the retrospective application, and to restore the common law rights in full.
In agreeing to re-examine the position, he promised to seek appropriate safeguards. To be entirely fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he did not promise that safeguards would be produced. He promised to explore the position. I infer, from the absence of any safeguards and of Amendments offering safeguards, that he has failed to find appropriate safeguards. The House must understand that the provision is one of very considerable seriousness in relation to local authorities. I include one local authority in particular, the Borough Council of Luton.
The position is that if a local authority is held to be acting in default of bylaws, there is the safeguard that there can be no prosecution without the Minister's consent for a period of seven years. If, on the other hand, the local authority is observing the bylaws and the changing and improving level of the bylaws, that local authority is still vulnerable in ignoring the bylaws, and an injunction can be sought and obtained at common law. As a result of that injunction, the local authority may be required by the court to do what it is financially and administratively impossible to do, recast and reshape the whole of its sewerage arrangement. Indeed, that is the position in which the Luton Borough Council finds itself.
I am not now raising the question of the retention of common law rights; I realise that the pressure of informed opinion is too great for that. I candidly admit that the injunction procedure had its effect on the local authority in question, but the authority is confronted with the position that to satisfy the order of the court it is compelled to take steps which are physically and administratively impossible because of the special circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Therefore, I ask that this matter be reconsidered. I repeat that I am now referring to the future, to circumstances in which bylaws have been made and bylaws have been observed, and I ask that local authorities conforming to those bylaws shall be protected, not from the injunction but from the operation—and the speed of operation—of the injunction, bearing in mind that where capital expenditure is involved it needs permissions which are in the hands of some external body of central departmental authority and parties who are not parties to the injunction in the legal sense.
I ask the Minister seriously to consider this position. He has gone a long way to protect local authorities who do not observe the bylaws. He is deliberately taking up the position that he must be the judge whether they should be prosecuted and should be required to take certain steps to conform to the bylaws. I suggest that, having done that, it is logical and sensible that the circumstances in which a local authority has conformed to the bylaws should spare it from the automatic operation of an injunction.
In the case I have mentioned, Luton was required to spend £1,500,000 on the blind operation of an injunction despite the fact that it had observed the bylaws. Already, in this instance, the sewerage rate is about 2s. 7d., an unusually high figure, and I ask, not only in relation to this authority but as a general principle, that there should be a safeguard between the awarding of the injunction and the requirement to take certain steps to observe the injunction, bearing in mind that those steps are not physically or financially possible without a period of delay.
It has been said that in future the courts will naturally take into account the existence of the bylaws, but there is no proof that that will be so. What a local

authority needs is to know what standards are required of it and to observe those standards. To leave the additional hazard of the injunction, quite apart from the civil damages, is to place a growing industrial town in a position of very considerable difficulty.

Mr. Teevan: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I disagree emphatically with what has been said by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill)—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman second the Amendment?

Mr. Renton: I understood that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan), had already seconded it formally.

Mr. Teevan: That is so.

Mr. Speaker: Both hon. Members rose together and I thought that they were both rising to second the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: Now it is clear that I am not seconding this Amendment, may I say that I most emphatically disagree with what my hon. Friend has said.
It has been made clear now that this Bill does not interfere with the common law rights. It adds something to them, and it seems to me that the Amendment which my hon. Friend proposes will sabotage those common law rights completely by linking them up closely with what is proposed in the Bill. Indeed, there must be a great advantage in allowing the private citizen, with the aid of the courts, to do something which perhaps a river board exercising its powers under this Bill would be reluctant to do.
To limit an injunction or order of the court given at the instance of a private individual in such a way as to let the river board, in effect, take it to the court, would be to interfere with the common law rights in a way which runs quite contrary to the general opinion expressed by hon. Members with regard to this matter. For those reasons, I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton: I sense that the House is not wholly behind the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). Indeed, he had a good run in the Committee and at the end of that, although he put his case with customary skill, it was the view of all parties upstairs that the common law rights


should be fully sustained. I made certain concessions from the original point of view in the Bill, and I was supported practically unanimously by both sides of the Committee that it would be quite contrary to the general rule of that Committee or of this House if we were to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that, having stated his case with his habitual skill, he will now skilfully withdraw the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the safeguards that he promised to consider? After all, the assaults on the common law rights appeared in the Bill as the first thoughts of His Majesty's Government. In the Committee the right hon. Gentleman defended that Clause and he retreated inch by inch, eventually promising, as the price of not accepting the Amendment, to consider safeguards. Will he give the House the fruits of that consideration which he promised?

Mr. Dalton: Yes. I showed myself, I hope, sensitive to opinion during those discussions—

Dr. Hill: Too sensitive.

Mr. Dalton: —and I found that the overwhelming view was that the common law rights should be fully sustained. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that in order to ease his position, which I was anxious to do, I said I would look to see whether any safeguards seemed necessary and desirable. I have looked, and it seems to me that it is better to leave the Bill in this respect as it now stands and to leave the common law rights completely unqualified. I think that is the general view in all parts of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6.—(EXTENSION OF SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO ESTUARIES AND COASTAL WATERS.)

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, to leave out "three and," and to insert "to."
This is a drafting Amendment. It arises from the fact that we have transformed Clause 2 (2), in the original Bill, into a Clause by itself, the new Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) in Clause 8, page 9, line 20.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for establishing river purification boards in Scotland and for conferring on or transferring to such boards functions relating to the prevention of river pollution; to make new provision for maintaining or restoring the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters of Scotland in place of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and certain other enactments, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session (including the payment of the expenses of any Committee constituted thereunder); and
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part II of the Local Government Act. 1948.

Resolution agreed to.

PLANNING REGULATIONS (COAL BOARD)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 24th April, 1951, entitled the Town and Country Planning (National Coal Board) Regulations 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 716), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if this Prayer and the one which follows—
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 27th April, 1951, entitled the Claims for Depreciation of Land Values (National Coal Board) Regulations 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 746), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be annulled.
—were taken together.

Mr. Powell: I was about to suggest that, Mr. Speaker.
The two sets of Regulations, which hang together, are, taken as a single entity, of considerable importance—sufficient, I hope, to justify detaining the Parliamentary Secretary, even after an arduous day, some little time longer. By Section 90 of the principal Act—the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—it was made possible for the Minister, who is now the Minister of Local Government and Planning, to make Regulations placing certain land belonging to the National Coal Board in the same position as land belonging to statutory undertakers. That was a permissive and not a mandatory power. The Minister has, however, decided to exercise that power by means of the Regulations, in order to obtain a discussion upon which I have moved their annulment.
In the first place, it is only proper that the Minister should give some reason to the House for wishing to place the land of the National Coal Board, which prima facie is of the essence of a commercial undertaking, in the same position for certain purposes as the land of statutory undertakers, which by their essence are non-commercial. This desirability is all the greater, in that when the principal Act passed through both Houses of Parliament the Section which gave the permissive powers now being exercised was not discussed or explained in either House at any stage; so that Parliament and the country have never received a word of explanation as to why these Regulations should be made.
The first question, therefore, I wish to put to the Minister is to ask why operational land of the National Coal Board should be exempted from the ordinary machinery of the principal Act for claiming compensation out of the global sum and paying development charge to the Central Land Board. I believe there is a logical reason for it, in that by the Coal Act, 1938, the right to develop the coal deposits of the country was nationalised and the obligations of the Coal Commissioners, then set up, have since passed to the National Coal Board.
Thus the development rights which were nationalised in 1947 by the Town and Country Planning Act, and which are gradually being recouped by the State in the form of development charges, did not include the right to develop coal, which had already been nationalised in 1938 and

which is being recouped by the National Coal Board through the profits it makes on its ordinary operations. If that is the case, it would indeed be logical that the National Coal Board should not pay development charge, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that or give the alternative explanation for the principle of exempting the National Coal Board's operational land from the general scheme of the principal Act.
The second point to which I would ask the Minister to attend is this. By the first of these two sets of Regulations, a certain modification is made for the National Coal Board in the application to the Board of the ordinary provisions in respect of statutory undertakers under the principal Act. Where planning permission to a statutory undertaker to carry out a certain development is either refused or is granted subject to conditions, compensation has to be paid to that statutory undertaker, and the terms upon which it is assessed are laid out in the Fourth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which has been embodied in the principal Act of 1947. But, by virtue of these Regulations, instead of that Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act, compensation to the National Coal Board is to be assessed on different principles, which are set out in the Second Schedule to these Regulations.
The point upon which I would ask for the Minister's explanation is a material difference between the provisions of the Second Schedule to these Regulations and the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act. I will say, as briefly as I can, what these are. Under the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act, a statutory undertaker whose operations are interfered with by the refusal or conditional grant of planning permission is compensated if he makes adjustments to the amount of the cost of the adjustment necessary for carrying on the undertaking plus the decrease in his net receipts while the adjustment is being made.
If, on the other hand, he makes no adjustment he is compensated to the
amount of any estimated decrease in net receipts…attributable to the proceeding giving rise to compensation.
I am quoting from paragraph 2 (1) of the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act. When we turn to the Second Schedule


to these Regulations, we find that the National Coal Board is to be in a different and much more advantageous position. In paragraph 3 of that Schedule their compensation is to be the aggregate of three amounts, and it is particularly the first of these three amounts to which I would draw attention:
such amount as is reasonable in respect of any expenditure at the affected mine which…is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the estimated output of that mine;
Those are the important words; "of that mine."
If the proceeding of the planning authority interferes with development of operational land by the National Coal Board, the National Coal Board can claim from the planning authority compensation equal to the amount of expenditure they have to undertake to maintain the estimated output of that mine. In addition, they get the grant of any further expenditure they may have to make and the amount of any decrease in net receipts. Those second and third amounts roughly correspond to those I have already quoted in respect of statutory undertakings from the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act.
Is it reasonable that the National Coal Board, which is conducting the extraction of coal over the whole of the United Kingdom and might well be able to make an adjustment in its national operations, which would entirely counterbalance or wipe out the effect of a planning instruction in one particular place, should be able to say to the planning authorities, "No. We are going to consider this particular mine in isolation and to insist on obtaining compensation equivalent to the expenditure we would have to undertake to get the same amount of coal from this mine," however uneconomic and unreasonable it might be to maintain the estimated output of the mine, and however readily the National Coal Board might be able to make up for those effects in other parts of its operations?
I submit that is an unreasonably favourable position in which to replace the National Coal Board and one which takes no account of the essentially commercial character and essentially nationwide character of its operations. After all, a statutory undertaking which is providing, say, water or gas in a particular

locality has obviously to continue to provide that service in that area whatever alteration there may be in planning conditions. But the National Coal Board are concerned only with their total global output. It is, therefore, I submit, only reasonable that they should be compensated to the extent of the actual loss which, as an undertaking regarded as a whole, they have suffered by reason of the denial or conditional grant of planning permission. That is the second point on which I should be grateful for an answer from the Minister.
The third point relates to Statutory Instrument No. 746, as well as Statutory Instrument No. 716. By No. 746, the National Coal Board are enabled to put in a late claim for compensation to the Central Land Board. Other people's claims had to be in by the middle of 1949, but by Statutory Instrument No. 746 the National Coal Board will be able to put in their claim two years later—in 1951. Why is that so? This claim which is being made for compensation is in respect of non-operational land, that part of the National Coal Board's land which is not being treated as land of a statutory undertaking and which, therefore, being subject to development charge, reasonably attracts compensation.
So far as I can see, the only reason why there has been this delay of two years is that the Government have not hitherto troubled to define operational land in its application to the National Coal Board. In other words, if they had made the definition of specified land which we find in Regulation 2 of Statutory Instrument No. 716, then the application for compensation could have been made at once. I can see nothing in the definition of specified land in that Regulation which could not have been made two years ago, or for that matter 10 years ago. Therefore, I fail to see why this special facilitity should have been accorded and made necessary in the case of the National Coal Board.
These are the three main points upon which it appears to me the Government owe some explanation to the House. I would add that there is a fourth and very minor point indeed, of which I have given the hon. Gentleman notice. It relates to the First Schedule of Statutory Instrument No. 716. I fail to see why Section 12 (2, c) of the principal Act should


be applied to the National Coal Board. That is a very small matter of detail, however, whereas I believe that the other three points are substantial and call for an answer. It is in the hope of obtaining it that I am moving this Motion.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to second the Motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who so lucidly moved the Motion, I feel that no apology is needed, this being the one way in which the House can obtain discussion and, it is to be hoped, some elaboration and elucidation of the matters contained in these very important and not altogether uncomplicated Statutory Instruments.
Section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, contemplates that regulations will be made dealing with the subjects which are dealt with in the first of these two Statutory Instruments, No. 716. Having in mind the fact that the Act was put on the Statute Book as long ago as August, 1947, the House will appreciate that we have waited for nearly four years for these Regulations, and the House is entitled to ask whether, now that the Regulations have been produced, they are worth waiting for.
The purpose of the Statutory Instrument No. 716 is to put the National Coal Board on the same basis for certain purposes as statutory undertakers in regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Statutory undertakers are defined in Section 119 (2). Some changes have taken place in statutory undertakers since the passing of the Act and the promulgation of the Order. Some statutory undertakers have gone into the maw of State monopoly, while others are not diminished in their usefulness by reason of having escaped that dubious distinction.
Statutory undertakers enjoy three main privileges under the Town and Country Planning Act, and it is these privileges which, with a certain differentiation, the National Coal Board is now to enjoy in common with them. In the first place, the statutory undertakers under Section 35 of the 1947 Act escape the jurisdiction of local planning authorities in regard to certain developments. Secondly, by Section 35 and paragraph 1 (1) of the Fifth

Schedule of the 1947 Act they get compensation for refusal to develop operational land. Thirdly, Section 84 of the 1947 Act exempts from the development charge land of statutory undertakers which was operational land at the appointed day, 1st July, 1948.
There is possibly a fourth privilege enjoyed by them which was referred to by my hon. Friend in the closing sentences of his speech. That is under Section 12 (2, c) of the 1947 Act, which includes in the exemption from the basic definition of development certain processes of statutory undertakers. I make no point as to that, because, in fact, the same sort of processes which as connected with maintenance and so on of industrial equipment are, in fact, permitted development for the ordinary industrial undertaker under Class X of the First Schedule of the 1950 General Development Order.
In substance, those are the three points of privilege enjoyed by statutory undertakers in regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. I would concede—because like my hon. Friend I am addressing myself to this question in no mood of hostility but merely because the subject calls for a certain amount of Parliamentary discussion and elaboration—that there is no doubt a prima facie case for the National Coal Board to receive the same treatment as statutory undertakers, subject, of course, to the point of principle already referred to by by hon. Friend that statutory undertakers in the ordinary sense of the word are not commercially employed, nor are they in the enjoyment of any statutory monopoly. They merely receive special statutory rights in return for the assumption of certain duties, and in this respect their position is different from that of the National Coal Board.
I had intended to say a few words in regard to the difference of treatment accorded to the National Coal Board in respect of compensation compared with that which is enjoyed by the statutory undertakers, but my hon. Friend has dealt fully with that matter. I would merely put a final question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Was the Second Schedule to the Statutory Instrument, No. 716, devised to put the National Coal Board in a more favourable case mutatis mutandis than that enjoyed by the statutory undertakers under the Fourth


Schedule to the 1944 Act, or was the intention, so far as possible, to accord them equal treatment, albeit in somewhat different circumstances?
I pass to the question of exemption from development charge. The Statutory Instrument exempts the specified land of the National Coal Board from development charge, in the same way as the operational land of the statutory undertakers. Here my hon. Friend has dealt with the question of principle and all I would add is that, if it be right that favourable treatment in regard to development charges is to be accorded to the National Coal Board, I would infinitely rather it were done in this straightforward way by exempting them from development charge, and forfeiting at the same time their right to a claim on the Fund, rather than by any method of preferential treatment in regard to a claim on the Fund.
So far as the extension of time for making a claim on the Fund is concerned in regard to the non-operational land of the National Coal Board, which is the subject matter of the other Statutory Instrument, No. 746, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It is late in the day to make this special extension of time so long after the final date in regard to all other claims upon the Fund. I want to put it to the Minister, in this context, that it is understood that the business of working the Section 58 Treasury scheme was prepared in accordance with a phased programme by which the first year—that was 1948–49—was to be devoted to the submission of claims, and the next three years, 1949–52, to the computation of development value and to arbitrations arising in cases of dispute, and the fifth year, 1952–53, to the assessment of the actual payments to be made out of the Fund.
That being the timetable, as I understand it, what is being done by this second Statutory Instrument, No. 746, is to make an extension of the time for making claims—that is to say, the subject matter of phase one of the operation—two-thirds of the way through phase two. I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this will not cause administrative inconvenience and dislocation to the progress of the timetable working of the Section 58 scheme. If this involves a

lot of administrative work—and I am in no position to assess how much it will involve—it may be that it may throw out the smooth working of the scheme as a whole.
May I refer to one last point? The First Schedule to Statutory Instrument 716 refers to all the various provisions in regards to which the National Coal Board is now to be in the same position as the Statutory undertakers. I will not refer to this in detail, but I will just mention the one of them which refers to Section 5 of the 1947 Act, because this deals with the third of the matters in respect of which I said that statutory undertakers had special treatment; that is to say, in respect of planning control.
This Schedule applies to the National Coal Board the same rights as are enjoyed by statutory undertakers in regard to the designation of land under development plans as being subject to compulsory purchase. There is no doubt that the National Coal Board, for obvious reasons, carries a great deal more guns than the average statutory undertaker. Already, people who are interested in the well-being of town planning as such are apprehensive of the effect upon them of what might be called the over-mighty subjects.
I ask the Minister to apply his mind to this particular point in regard to the future of planning, and to make it clear that, if the National Coal Board, like other statutory undertakers, will enjoy these rights under the development plan, their intervention in the discussions and in the formulation of development plans will not make the matter a fait accompli without full and proper planning consideration being brought to bear, because that is the sort of apprehension that does exist among many people of all parties who are interested in the future of town and country planning. Therefore, I close by urging upon the Minister his duty in that respect, because to make planning work it is necessary sometimes to control the strong as well as the weak, and in proper cases to encourage the weak as well as the strong.

10.28 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I want to intervene for a moment and to make it clear that I do so on a specific point which is not intimately related to what has been said by the two hon.


Members who have spoken. I want to be quite clear on what is the extent and nature of this land in the possession of the National Coal Board, the possession of which is being treated as if it were possessed by a statutory undertaker. As often happens with regulations, it is not too easy to discover from paragraph 2 (1, c) exactly what surface land comprises. I am referring, of course, to Statutory Instrument No. 716. I gather that operational land is included in (1, c) and non-operational land in (1, d), but I would ask whether all the land in the possession of the National Coal Board, particularly all the agricultural land, is comprised in these Regulations. If that is the case, a strong protest should be made.
I should like to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to Section 68 of the Turner Report on subsidence, which criticises severely the possession by the National Coal Board of considerable areas of land. While they might be held, in the words of the Regulations. "for the purpose of those activities"—those activities being mining—in the opinion of the Turner Committee their possession by the National Coal Board was by no means to be justified. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, would make it clear whether the whole of the land in the occupation of the National Coal Board is included, and specifically whether they are going to get exemption from development charge, and all the other advantages a statutory undertaking enjoys, for this land which they hold for a purpose which many of us, and members of the Turner Committee, consider was really unjustified.

10.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): May I first of all express appreciation of the general tone and manner in which hon. Gentlemen have raised this matter tonight. Dealing first with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), I would remind him that an Explanatory Memorandum has been issued on these Regulations and the points he has raised are set out fully in that Memorandum, but I hope to deal with them as I go through an explanation of the general basis of the Regulations.
As has been suggested by the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) and Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), these are complicated Regulations, and it is difficult, without going into technicalities, to deal with the matter in every-day language. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, suggested that Section 90 is only permissive. Of course, that is admitted; but there are two Ministers involved—the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Local Government and Planning, and they have to work in consultation with the Treasury.
There is one point I should make this evening, and I think I ought to make it here in case I forget it. If this undertaking were included in the £300 million, there would be less to divide among other people. If they were not excluded, other people who have put in claims would be having an even rougher ride than the one they think they are going to have in present circumstances.
The Minister could deal with this in three ways. First, he could have said that the provisions of Section 90 were not to apply and make no Regulations at all. I think that would have been wrong, because the 1947 Act relates primarily to the development of land and buildings and land operations generally, and it needs modification in its application to the problems of minerals and of coal mining. The second way would have been to apply the statutory undertaking provisions without any amendment at all. Equally, I do not think that would have been the correct way, because they do not fit the needs and activities of the National Coal Board, particularly in regard to underground mining.
But Section 90 does give the power to apply the statutory undertaking provisions, subject to "adaptations, modifications and exceptions." That is really what we have done. We have adapted the Regulations to fit them in, so far as the National Coal Board are concerned. We have used these adaptations and modifications freely. I think the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the adaptations fully and in black letters. The suggestion was made that we ought not to have used this provision, because Section 90 was the victim of the Guillotine during the discussion of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Mr. Powell: I only gave that as a reason for the desirability of explaining this Section, and not as a reason against making these Regulations.

Mr. Lindgren: If that is the case, I accept that. But Section 90 is the law of the land and we have to discuss tonight, not whether it is right or wrong, but whether these Regulations are in accordance with the general intentions of the House of Commons. It is true that the National Coal Board is not a Crown body, and it does not receive any advantages which Crown bodies receive. It is subject to planning control like any private person, or like any of the recognised statutory undertakers, such as those concerned with transport, gas, electricity; and, like any statutory undertaker, it has a statutory duty—to produce coal efficiently. That, I think, is a point which has not been mentioned by any of the hon. Members who have spoken this evening.
Under the 1946 Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, the Coal Board has the statutory duty of producing coal efficiently. It is subject to Government control, inasmuch as it is subject to the direction of the Minister of Fuel and Power upon matters which affect the national interest. So far as its main job of securing coal is concerned, I think that most people will agree that it is very much in the same category as any statutory undertaking, whether those undertakings are concerned with gas, electricity, transport or water. It has the duty of providing for the community the basic commodity, coal.
To deal with the point raised, in particular, by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead, it is true that the National Coal Board inherited from the old colliery companies certain lands which have no direct relationship with the production of coal. It owns a good deal of farm land. That was bought, in particular, to save the old colliery companies paying compensation arising from subsidence. It owns miners' cottages, shops and offices, in various parts of the country. All that non-operational land is outside the scope of these Regulations. It is dealt with in the ordinary way as is any ordinary land or buildings owned by any private company or private individual. These Regulations are concerned only with operational land directly associated

with the production of coal. It is only this operational land which has been specified under these Regulations and which has been excluded from claims under Part VI.
The question is asked, "Why do that?" The hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West, really gave the answer himself. It is that under the 1938 Coal Act, passed by the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we nationalised the coal of this country. We paid the mineral owners at that time £66 million. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act we vested the rights of working that coal in the National Coal Board. If we did not make this exception, the National Coal Board would make a claim in regard to the loss of development value of coal workings for which the State has already paid £66 million, and the Treasury would have to wait for some considerable time for the development charge arising from the work of the Coal Board.
I think the House will agree that nationalisation has made it much simpler, and that the simplest way to say it is, "Now that we have the coal under national control and vested in the National Coal Board, the sensible, plain and straightforward way of dealing with it is to say, no claim under Part VI, no development charge." That is why we are making these Regulations.
Equally, the type of undertaking makes a considerable difference. After all, the National Coal Board is not a normal commercial undertaking. One cannot buy a mine shaft on the open market, and no one would get a bid on the open market for one. It is only things associated with mining (but not farm lands, shops and offices) which are excluded. This property is not like any type of ordinary building in which one can put in any machinery and the adaptability of which means that one can use it for a number of various activities.
So the National Coal Board, in my view, has not been favourably dealt with; it has been sensibly dealt with in the light of the provisions of Section 90, in the light of the fact that it is similar in most of its aspects to a statutory undertaking, and also that the operations in which it is engaged mean that the assets it has are practically only of development value in so far as the undertaking


itself is concerned, and not so far as the general body of industry is concerned.

Mr. Molson: May I interrupt, because it might be useful if I asked a question at this point, even though it may be that the Minister will deal with it later? The hon. Gentleman has just indicated that he did not think there would be a sale for a pit shaft. How does it come about that, in relation to the compensation which is to be paid, instead of its being done in accordance with the principles of assessment provided in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act, it is provided here that
such amount as is reasonable…for the purpose of maintaining the estimated output of that mine;…
I should have thought the line of reasoning of the hon. Gentleman was directly in conflict with the proposals for assessment which are contained in these Regulations.

Mr. Lindgren: No. I do not want to repeat myself, but in case I forget it later, I will deal with the point now. So far as these Regulations are concerned, the Coal Board is in a much, I will not say worse, but in a different position from a normal statutory undertaking. The Regulations have been drafted accordingly. In fact, the National Coal Board is now in a worse position from the point of view of compensation than were the old colliery companies.
Take, for example, a case which might easily arise and one which I came up against in my railway experience: that is, where a certain seam of coal is left in order to maintain a railway. Under the old arrangements with the colliery companies, there was an assessment of the coal which was left in. The colliery companies were paid, and all that happened was that the company concerned made a diversion in their workings; in a sense, they were paid twice. They diverted their workings, and the loss of production was nil. In those circumstances, under the Regulations, because the Coal Board's loss of production was nil, there would not be any compensation; but if, because of that diversion, there had to be a new set of headings and perhaps some expenditure was incurred in that regard, the cost of the headings and that sort of thing would be paid.
This means that we are really taking account of delay in making payment to the Coal Board. To put it bluntly, the coal that is under the railway will be a loss to the Coal Board at some time, because when the pit is completely worked out there will be those patches of coal that have been left under the buildings or the railway. The Coal Board will then have the right to say that but for the fact that they were prevented from working under the railway or the buildings in question, they could have worked that coal. They thus become entitled to compensation. The old colliery companies got the full value of the coal at the time they stopped the operation. The Coal Board will only get the value of the loss of coal in 10, 15, 20 or even 100 years hence. That is the way in which the scheme works.
The point was made also that the Regulations are not in accordance with the general provisions of the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act. I suggest, however, that they are. Even if they are not, Section 90 (2) of the 1947 Act makes provision for a new code of compensation to be drawn up. I think I have dealt with the points which have been raised in regard to surface buildings. If it is agreed that the general area of specified land at a pithead is a right area to include, no one would suggest that we should isolate particular pieces of land within that area and make it like a pepper-pot pattern merely because a particular building—a manager's house, for instance—should be excluded.
The question was raised whether the Coal Board was being given preferential treatment by the fact that it now had an extension of time under the second of the Regulations for making their Part VI claims. They are not being given preferential treatment, because those claims could not be made until the first Regulations were made and it had been determined which was specified land.

Mr. Powell: Why was it impossible to define specified land two or three years ago?

Mr. Lindgren: Because we have had to enter into negotiations; because local authorities have been involved in consultations, as have been the National Coal Board, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and my own Ministry. It is not unnatural that in negotiations the Coal Board, for


instance, might seek to include within their specified land, land which the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, the local authority associations, or the Central Land Board, thought should not be included. So, there have been very extensive negotiations carried on during all this time, but this has in no way caused any difficulty for the National Coal Board, the Central Land Board, or anyone else.
Section 90 has specifically provided for the exclusion of the National Coal Board from Part VI, and the discussions have largely been on what should be operational land. All this has not affected the timetable referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford. The reason for that timetable, and the refusal to accept extensions is that the valuation of Part VI claims proved to be a very extensive job. It has had to be done area by area. The Coal Board's holdings happen to be scattered throughout the country, but the Central Land Board have known that these Regulations were to be made, and the valuations have been planned accordingly.
I think that I have answered most of the points raised by hon. Members who have spoken tonight, and I hope, in view of the explanation which I have given, and in view of the Explanatory Memorandum which has been made publicly available, that the House will now allow these Regulations to pass. If I may say so, I think I should add that the Explanatory Memorandum explains with considerable clarity the effect of the Regulations.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I think that the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation; but I should like to say that any impartially-minded person, having made a study in detail of this matter, and having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech tonight, will agree that this is a sufficiently difficult and complex subject to have justified our moving this Prayer in order to obtain the explanation we have had from him. But if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the explanation and the Explanatory Memorandum are, in themselves, sufficient to explain, not only the effect of the Regulations, but also the purpose of the Regulations, then I think that he is being unduly optimistic. He is

being unduly optimistic about the lucidity of the Explanatory Memorandum.
On the whole, the explanation which he has given is reasonably satisfactory, but it is quite impossible, from merely reading the Second Schedule to the Regulation and comparing it with Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the 1944 Act, to know whether the basis of compensation to be paid to the National Coal Board is more or less favourable than what would have been paid under the earlier Act to the colliery owners of that time.
But I accept the assurance he has given that the changing in the basis of assessment is not due to the partiality which this Government have for a nationalised industry, and that it is not intended to grant to the nationalised industry more favourable compensation than that which would have been considered fair if the industry had been in private hands. The hon. Gentleman has given us an assurance in good faith, and I hope that that will be borne out when the assessments are made.
I do not, however, think that he has really given an entirely satisfactory explanation of why it has taken so long for the necessary negotiations to be completed and for the definition of the specified land to be published in Regulations. All that he said about the difficulty of this matter arises from the Act of 1947, and the long-suffering private individuals have been obliged to work out these problems themselves and to make their claim by the earlier date. No extension of time has been given to them. But in view of the general explanation which has now been provided, and because, as I understand it, the scope of the specified land is so wide that, on the whole, the effect of these Regulations will be rather to diminish than to increase the claims that can be made by the National Coal Board upon the £300 millions, I must regard these Regulations as being reasonably satisfactory.
We on this side of the House consider it was unjust and arbitrary for the then Minister of Town and Country Planning to have "guessed"—the words of the present Minister of Local Government and Planning—that the total value of the rights in land was about £300 millions. The newer claims, both in respect of buildings and of minerals, mean that the


other claimants upon that £300 millions have had the amount available to them diminished by the amount of priority given to other people. Because that has not been done in these Regulations, we can regard them as reasonably satisfactory in the light of the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I think the hon. Gentleman made rather heavy weather about my reference to Section 90 under which these Regulations are permissive. It will not have escaped the lynx-eye of yourself, Sir, and your advisers that, but for the fortunate fact that Section 90 of the principal Act is permissive, it would have been impossible for the hon. Gentleman to give the House the explanation of that Section and of the principle of these Regulations which he has done tonight. I feel also that he failed to justify the basing of compensation upon production from the single mine affected. I venture to hope that in the particular cases where these Regulations are applied, the National Coal Board would not necessarily insist upon the last drop of blood.
Nevertheless, like my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), I feel that we ate obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he has given. It has been a slowish hunt of an hour over a very strongly fenced country, and with the onset of dark, I feel it is time to whip off hounds. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPORTS TO CHINA

Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: In many ways it is a matter for regret to me that I am raising once again the subject of our rubber exports to China. I think it is fair to say that, as a result of a great deal of pressure in this House, we have now stopped our rubber exports to China and, in view of the fact also that the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the question of

Formosa has been changed, I should very much prefer not to feel compelled to raise this subject this evening.
I am not in any way wishing to be personal about the matter, but I must confess that a decisive factor has been the quite extraordinary arrogance and hypocrisy displayed by the President of the Board of Trade on the occasion of his last speech. I should like to read to the House the opinion which was expressed upon the subject of aid and comfort to the Chinese by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was Attorney-General. I am reading from a letter written to me by the Minister of Defence; it was published on 13th April in "The Times" and other newspapers, and I am, in fact, reading from the "Daily Worker."
This was revealed in a letter from Mr. Shinwell to Mr. Raymond Blackburn. The letter states:

'You may remember that when I made my statement on operations in Korea on 21st March you raised the question of the publicity being given by the Daily Worker about British casualties and the statements which it attributed to British prisoners of war. I undertook to bring the matter to the notice of the Attorney-General'—
that is, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, now President of the Board of Trade—
'I have since discussed the matter with the Attorney-General.'—
so I am now reading the opinion the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself gave only about a month before he became President of the Board of Trade—
'He is well aware of the undesirable activities of the Daily Worker in this connexion, some of which have every appearance of coming within the definition of treasonable activities.'
Here is the vital sentence.
'This does, of course, turn to some extent on the question whether or not we are at war with China. On this it seems likely that from a legal point of view the state of hostilities between China and ourselves is sufficient to bring an act of giving aid and comfort to the Chinese within the definition of treason.
The difficulty about instituting'—
there was a sense of humour somewhere here—
'a prosecution, however, is that no other charge than that of treason would be possible, and that the only penalty for treason is death.'


If the "Daily Worker," by its articles, was giving aid and comfort to the Chinese to such an extent that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us in this letter they were committing treason, what was the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and of the Government, who gave 120,000 tons of rubber in the first nine months after the war started—on their own figures? I am going to enter into the figures a bit later; I am going to give the prices of the rubber. They have given, on any view, since the beginning of the war with China, certainly well over £100 million of warlike material to China. Do we understand that the articles of the "Daily Worker" bring them within the charge of treason, but that for the Government themselves to sanction £100 million of warlike materials going to China does not also bring the Government within the charge of treason?
Far be it from me to suggest—it would be the last thing in my mind to suggest—that the charge of impeachment should ever be brought against any of His Majesty's Ministers, but, if the charge were brought, there is one who would unfortunately have his own legal opinion raised against him, because he has said in this letter, which the Minister of Defence sent to me, that to give aid and comfort to the Chinese brings anyone within the charge of treason. There is the letter.
Let me turn for one moment to the officially published figures.

Mr. Chetwynd: Mr. Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees) rose—

Mr. Blackburn: I am not giving way. Nobody has ever given way to me; the right hon. and learned Gentleman will never give way to me.
Let me read the figures that he himself quoted. I am quoting from the Rubber Statistical Bulletin, Secretariat of the Rubber Study Group, March, 1951, page 37. I am going to ignore decimals; I am giving London, but the other figures are the same.
The price of rubber in 1950 was as follows:
January, 1s. 3d.; February, 1s. 4d.; March, 1s. 4d.; April, 1s. 7d.; May, 1s. 11d.

We are now coming near to the date of the war. In June 2s. 0d., July 2s. 6d., August 3s. 5d., September 3s. 10d., October 4s. 3d., November 5s. 1d., December 4s. 4d., January 4s. 11d., February 5s. 9d., and March 5s. 5d.
Certainly those prices rocketed, but in no way comparable to the way our exports of rubber rocketed, according to the Government's figures. According to the President's own figures, in the first six months of 1950—and I have given these figures previously in the OFFICIAL REPORT—the total exports to China were only 4,000 tons. These figures were not contradicted, and in fact the President said that I had said nothing new at the time I gave them.
The figures as given for the next nine months were 120,000 tons at a price approximately three or four times the average price in the previous six months when 4,000 tons were sold. In other words, it is absolutely undeniable on the Government's own figures that profits in excess of the sum of £50 million were made directly by this country—and it must have been known by the Government—out of the war in China in supplying goods which are admitted to be strategic material for war. All my authorities for this are absolutely undeniable, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
Let me come from March to April. I gave these figures in a censure Motion I put down against the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In the month of April—and we were told that these supplies had been stopped on 7th or 9th April—according to the figures officially given by the Hong Kong Government, about 5,000 tons of rubber went direct to China and about 3,800 or 4,000 tons went to Hong Kong. In other words, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we stopped our exports from the 7th or 9th, in that very month we sent to China and Hong Kong a total vastly in excess of the total admitted by the Government in supplies of rubber to China for the whole of the first six months of 1950. That is admitted on the Government's own figures, and that is one of the reasons I am raising this matter tonight.
Actually I think it is excellent that the Government have now said they will stop the supply of rubber to China. I am glad


they have done it, but I was astonished beyond measure to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say we had given the lead to the world. As far as I am concerned, I am in no way attempting to bring our relations with the United States into this argument. The issue is not how the United States or how the Soviet Union has behaved, but how we have behaved, and how we ought to behave to our own people. In view of the use made by those who fought for the Labour Party in 1945 and before of the book "Guilty Men," and some of the things we said in those days about the Americans for supplying scrap to Japan, shortly before the war began, I think there ought to be some consistency, and one ought to recognise the position in which one is.
It is easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to produce a set of figures. The Government have contradicted themselves four or five times already, and it will mean nothing to him to contradict any figures given tonight. I am going to quote from the sworn testimony—I do not say it is necessarily correct—given yesterday by Admiral Sherman, the last of the Chiefs of Staff to be called before the Senate Committee investigating certain matters in America.
There is a great deal of difference between sworn testimony by a Chief of Staff and statements made at the Dispatch Box and capable of being denied, as has so frequently happened, in the next day or two. [An HON. MEMBER: "And your statements, too."] Certainly. But none of the figures I have given are mine. A statement by me is of no importance whatever unless it is supported by facts. I have been quoting from the Government's own figures. The hon. Gentleman may take this and read it after the debate, and I hope he will learn from the evidence that the Government have produced. Admiral Sherman said:
Examples of trade with Communist China are reports in April that one Hong Kong firm was attempting to barter rubber in exchange for 150,000 tons of Manchurian soya beans. Two hundred and twenty-eight trucks were shipped from Hong Kong to China from January to April. During April a Hong Kong firm offered to supply the Chinese Communists with 100 surplus General Motors five-ton trucks and 10,000 sets of tyres.
I want to come to the main point of difference between me and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Colonial

Office have published figures of exports of rubber to China. I have no doubt that these figures are exclusive of indirect exports to China, and that the indirect exports have been on a much greater scale than the Government have ever been prepared to admit. Surely the Government, on their own figures, should be able to differentiate between exports to China and exports to Hong Kong. Exports to Hong Kong are a very different matter from exports to China.
The Government are surely not admitting already that Hong Kong is part of China; but many of the exports to Hong Kong, as the Government or their advisers well know, are bound to find their way to China. Apart from that—this is a point again sworn to by Admiral Sherman—an enormous trade has been done, from this country and from ports in the Commonwealth and Empire, not through Hong Kong but by the use of ships flying foreign flags which have gone through other ports.
I wish to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity that I feel sure he would not give me. If may be asked, "Why raise this point at this stage?" The main reason, in my submission, that it ought to be raised at this stage is that the future peace of the world may well depend on the attitude we take towards the very great problems that now arise in China and Korea. It is a profound error, which may lead to war, for the Government to suppose that by any form of appeasement towards Communist China they can help to prevent war.
On the contrary, it will be shown, and has been shown already, that any action transgressing the bounds of justice and decency which is an attempt to avoid a war with China makes the Chinese Communist Government more aggressive and not less aggressive. I do not for one moment advance the view that war is imminent; I have never done so; but I think at this time it is vital that we should stick to genuine principles of international law and that we ourselves should be prepared to come out in favour of the proposal for a blockade—and I use the word advisedly—of all war materials going to China. I also say that we must make our own moral position absolutely clear.
Let us take the question of the young men—I see that 75 of them were under the age of 20—who have been conscripted and have died in Korea since the war started. On the figures which I have given and which cannot be answered—and I will take an Adjournment on this question again if I receive an answer which appears to me to be no answer—profits of between £40 million and £50 million must have been made out of this war. Out of these profits made out of the war the Government must have taken many, many millions of pounds in taxation—out of profits which would never have been derived but for the war. I ask them to disclose the amount of taxation on profits which have been made as a result of the war, and to allocate 25 per cent. for the benefit of dependents of those who have died and those who were wounded in the war.
I have no intention of going on longer. I feel very deeply upon this subject. It may be that I shall not have very much longer in this House, but in any event I shall be exceedingly glad I raised this subject in this House. I should be utterly ashamed to have been responsible for the way in which, knowing that the price of rubber has gone up month after month due to the war, we have sold vastly increased amounts of rubber month after month, and for coming forward in this House, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, and claiming that we gave a lead to the world. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the new departure in the Government's policy, which I hope will go forward, we shall be able to show, as we have shown before, that we stand for the cause of freedom and collective security in a way which no other country in the world has done.

11.20 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am not sure, and probably the hon. Member himself is not sure, what was the object behind the characteristically careless and ill-informed and mischievous speech which he has made. One thing I regret is the personal offensiveness, although, coming from the source it did. I can afford to be serenely indifferent about that—serenely indifferent and not surprised, because

hon. Members on both side of the House know the hon. Member.
What is to be seriously regretted is that at this time any hon. Member of this House should have made a speech so calculated, deliberately calculated, to cause misunderstanding and anxiety between ourselves and the United States of America. There are plenty of enemies of this country who are only too anxious to exploit any pretext to cause these difficulties between two countries whose mutual friendship and co-operation and understanding are vital to the survival of the free world. I had not thought that any hon. Member of this House would sink so low as to use his position as a Member of Parliament, however temporary, to make such a mischievous speech as the hon. Member has made.
For in the United States of America, if this speech be reported at all, it will be reported as a speech made by a British Member of Parliament, and in America they will not be so well able to assess, as we are, the weight to be attached to the views and statements of the hon. Member. Nor do they know, as we know, that at the end of the life of this Parliament the hon. Member will be thrown back into the political obscurity from which the Labour Party very unwisely assisted him to rise. But it is, perhaps, at least significant—and this ought to be known in America—that out of the total Members of Parliament, in both Houses of our British Parliament, the number who thought it worth while to come and listen to the hon. Member make this speech was less than two per cent.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make use of the late hour of the night, on an Adjournment Motion, to make these totally unjustified remarks?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Perfectly in order.

Sir H. Shawcross: I have not the slightest intention of going over again, to satisfy the vanity of the hon. Member, the full and clear, and I think satisfactory, debate on exports to China which we had on 10th May. Nor am I going to engage in statistical argument with the


hon. Member. There has never been any secret about the nature or extent of our trade with China. It has been fully available in the Trade and Navigation Returns. Special returns were made of Hong Kong's trade from fortnight to fortnight, I think it was, to the United States Consul in Hong Kong so that the whole matter could be concerted.
The facts and figures were as I stated them on 7th May and 10th May. I have previously said that the total exports of rubber to China between July, 1950, and March, 1951, included all exports, whether direct or through Hong Kong. I said so on 7th May, I said so three times on 10th May, and I say so again now. The hon. Member, because of some conversation he alleged the other day that he had with the Colonial Office, has sought to suggest that the figures did not include the re-exports through Hong Kong.

Mr. Blackburn: I did not say that.

Sir H. Shawcross: I listened to the hon. Member's account of a telephone conversation with an officer of the Colonial Office. That account is gravely at variance with the detailed account which I have received from a very high and distinguished officer of the Colonial Office who spoke to the hon. Member on the telephone. Having heard both accounts, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I accept unreservedly the account of that distinguished civil servant, and reject what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No question of order arises. The hon. Member must permit me to say that he has taken more than a fair proportion of the short time available, and he must allow the Minister to reply.

Sir H. Shawcross: I only add that in his telephone conversation with the high and distinguished civil servant concerned, the hon. Member said that he felt rather a cad in asking these questions, because he wanted the information to attack the Colonial Secretary. As to that remark by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. That is absolutely—[HON. MEMBERS:

"Sit down."] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to lie, I have no intention of staying.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw that remark. If not, then he must withdraw from the House.

Mr. BLACKBURN: Mr. BLACKBURN declined to comply with that direction; whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 21 (Disorderly Conduct), ordered the hon. Member to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting; and he withdrew accordingly.

Sir H. Shawcross: As to that, I have no reason whatever to doubt the hon. Member's own description of himself. The second thing I have to say is this: whilst in my Department we are always anxious to give the fullest assistance and information to any Member of Parliament who comes to us, I have directed in my office that in future if the hon. Member who has just been ordered to withdraw from the House requires information, he must do it in writing and he will get a written reply.
Now, on 9th April it was decided to put into operation a quantitative control of 2,500 tons a month on rubber to China. Before that control came into operation, approximately 7,000 tons had already been shipped in the month of April. That accounts for the figure of about 9,000 tons as the total for the month of April. The hon. Member thought it right, completely recklessly, to accuse me of falsehood about the figures for April and about our imposition of a quantitative control over it. In order to substantiate that charge, he found it convenient to forget the early part of April, and the fact that in that time substantial shipments took place before the control came into operation which we had no power at all to stop.
I can only give the hon. Member the figures, I cannot give him the capacity to understand them. But I want just to add this. He suggested that we should have a blockade of China. The significant thing about trading with the Communist countries and exporting goods to them is this: do they increase the potential strength of those who receive them more than the imports we receive in return increase our potential strength? We are satisfied that the balance of advantage has been on our side, and it is


completely fallacious to suppose that it would be wise strategically, or that America or anybody else wants us to cut off all trade with the Communist countries, China included.
After a great many visits to the United States of America and some knowledge of the American people, I am more than ever convinced of the importance of friendly understanding and co-operation with that country. We have not always been very successful. I am afraid, in explaining our position and our difficulties and our policies in the United States, particularly our difficulties, depending as we do on vital supplies from the Communist countries, which the United States cannot replace and which we cannot get elsewhere.
I hope that these difficulties we have had in explaining our position in the United States will not be further added to by the speech of the hon. Member, whose facts I assert with complete confidence, were inaccurate, whose conclusions were wholly misleading. I hope that our friends in America will not be misled by these reckless statements, and that they will understand that we have done and shall do nothing to strengthen the war potential of the Communist countries relatively to our own, or to that of America and the other countries with which we are associated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.